Tag Archive for: war

Update on the curious high-tech war between Iran plus its proxies and Israel

/in , , , , , , , /by

From last night:

Breitbart:

Report: Hezbollah Had Planned to Hit Tel Aviv at 5:00 a.m.

The New York Times reported Saturday evening that Hezbollah had planned to hit Tel Aviv with missiles at 5:00 a.m. Sunday morning Israel time, which is why the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) launched a pre-dawn preemptive strike.

The Times’ Ronen Bergman reported:

Israel’s preemptive attack was aimed at missile launchers in Lebanon that had been programmed to be fired at 5 a.m. in the direction of Tel Aviv, according to a Western intelligence official. The official said that all the launchers that were targeted were destroyed and that Israel was anticipating a harsh response from Hezbollah.

As Breitbart News reported, the IDF launched a large preemptive strike early Sunday morning local time, preempting what it said was a major imminent attack by Hezbollah. Israeli authorities urged residents of the northern half of the country, from Tel Aviv northwards, to stay near bomb shelters and safe rooms, and prohibited public gatherings of more than 130 people as a precaution. It said people should feel free to go to work if they were near available shelters.

IDF: Israel Hit ‘Thousands’ of Hezbollah Launchers; Lebanon: One Dead

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said Sunday that it had hit “thousands” of Hezbollah rocket launchers in southern Lebanon in a pre-dawn preemptive strike to thwart an attack on Tel Aviv. Lebanon reported one dead in the attack.

In a statement, the IDF said:

Approximately 100 [Israel Air Force] fighter jets, directed by IDF intelligence, struck and destroyed thousands of Hezbollah rocket launcher barrels that were located and embedded in southern Lebanon. Most of these launchers were aimed toward northern Israel and some were aimed toward central Israel. More than 40 launch areas in Lebanon were struck during the strikes. 

The Lebanese media reported one dead in the attack, according to the Times of Israel.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a statement from the “Kirya,” Israel’s military headquarters, in Tel Aviv (translated from Hebrew by the Government Press Office):

This morning we identified Hezbollah preparations to attack Israel. In consensus with the Defense Minister and the IDF Chief-of-Staff, we directed the IDF initiate action to eliminate the threat.

Since then, the IDF has been taking strong action to foil the threats. It has eliminated thousands of rockets that were aimed at northern Israel. It is thwarting many other threats and is taking very strong action – both defensively and offensively.

Citizens of Israel, I request that you adhere to the directives from IDF Home Front Command.

We are determined to do everything to defend our country, to return the residents of the north securely to their homes and to continue upholding a simple rule: Whoever harms us – we will harm them.

According to some reports, Hezbollah had been planning to launch a barrage of thousands of rockets at Tel Aviv. After the Israeli airstrike, Hezbollah launched hundreds of rockets, to little effect. More Hezbollah rockets were expected.

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog column posted by Eeyore is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Who is directing the war on agriculture and nutrition?

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

Billionaire organizations and foundations, government agencies, and activist pressure groups are funding and coordinating a global war on modern agriculture, nutrition, and Earth’s poorest, hungriest people. Instead of helping more families get nutritious food, better healthcare, and higher living standards, they’re doing the opposite and harming biodiversity in the process.

The World Economic Forum wants to reimagine, reinvent, and transform the global food system to eliminate greenhouse gases from food production. Central to its plan are alternatives to animal protein: meal worm potato chips, bug burgers instead of beef patties, and meat loaves and sausages made from lake flies, for instance. Fixing the WEF’s toxic workplace is apparently a low priority.

A UN Food and Agriculture Organization report advises that turning “edible insects” into “tasty” food products can create thriving local businesses and even promote “inclusion of women.”

Created to alleviate global poverty, the World Bank has decided the “manmade climate crisis” is a far greater threat to impoverished families than contaminated water, malaria, and other killer diseases, hunger, or even two billion people still burning wood and dung because they don’t have reliable, affordable electricity. It has unilaterally decreed that 45% of its funds – an extra $9 billion in FY2024 – will be shifted to helping the poor “better withstand the devastation of climate change.”

(The Bank has also decided that even more of its taxpayer funding – $300-million instead of “only” $70-million – should be gifted to the Palestinian Authority, which pays terrorists to murder Israelis.)

Of course, most of the better and lesser-known environmental pressure groups are also deeply involved in food, agriculture, and energy policy campaigns: Greenpeace, Sierra Club, EarthJustice, Friends of the Earth, Pesticide Action Network, Center for Food Safety, La Via Campesina (The Peasant Way), Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa, and countless others.

Like the rest of the “agro-ecology” movement, they deride and malign modern agriculture as a scourge inflicted by greedy mega-corporations. They oppose fossil fuels, pesticides, herbicides, and biotechnology. They extol “food sovereignty” and the “right to choose.” But their policies reflect top-down tyranny and bullying, with little room for poor farmers to embrace modern agricultural technologies and practices.

In addition to WEF, FAO, and World Bank support, these hard-green organizations have the ideological, organizational, and financial backing of the US Agency for International Development, EU agencies, and a host of progressive and far-left American, European, and other foundations.

The US-based AgroEcology Fund was created by the Christensen Fund, New Fields Foundation, and Swift Foundation. Its funding and programs are overseen by the New Venture Fund, which helps “charitable” and “educational” organizations direct funds to programs that align with what many characterize as neo-colonialist and eco-imperialist goals.

Other major players include the Schmidt Family Foundation, Packard Foundation, Ford Foundation, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, and Ben and Jerry Foundation.

This is serious money – hundreds of millions of dollars per year in food, agriculture, and climate change funding. It completely overshadows the piddling $9,000 that Kenyan farmer Jusper Machogu raised via donations to his “climate realism” website – much of it given to neighbors so they could drill water wells, buy tanks of propane, or get connected to the local grid.

And yet Mr. Machogu incurred the wrath of the BBC’s “Climate Disinformation Officer.” (Yes, the Beeb actually has such a position.) The CDO attacked him for “tweeting false and misleading claims” about climate change and saying Africa should develop its oil, gas, and coal reserves – instead of relying entirely on intermittent, weather-dependent wind and solar. Even worse, the farmer had the temerity to accept donations from non-Africans, including “individuals with links to the fossil fuel industry and groups known for promoting climate change denial.”

Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors is another major donor to agro-ecology outfits. It’s part of the legacy of guilt-ridden oil money from John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Co. corporate trust – an inheritance that includes nearly 1,000 climate-related institutions, foundations, and activist organizations.

As Canada’s Frontier Centre put it, “Every time you hear a ‘climate change’ scare story, [the person writing it] was PAID. He is a Rockefeller stooge. He may not know it, but his profession has been entirely corrupted.” Far worse, I would add, the writer and his (or her) organization are complicit in perpetuating global poverty, energy deprivation, hunger, disease, and death – because the fearmongering drives destructive energy and food production policies.

Alone or collectively, these policy corrupters must not be underestimated in this war to preserve and expand modern energy, agriculture, and global nutrition. Thankfully, there is increasing pushback. Many families simply do not want to be trapped in poverty, disease, mud-and-thatch huts, an absence of educational opportunities for their children, and a future of backbreaking, dawn-to-dusk labor in little subsistence-farming fields.

That’s especially so when films, news stories, and cell phones present American and European farming equipment and practices – and the crop yields, wealth, health, homes, leisure time, and opportunities that accompany those modern agricultural systems.

Poor farmers also see China, India, Indonesia, and other countries rapidly industrializing and modernizing by using oil, gas, and coal. They see rumblings of change in many countries that are intent on charting their own courses, with fossil fuels as the energy foundation for that growth. They’re rejecting the eco-colonialism and eco-imperialism that wealthy Westerners seek to impose on them.

They are getting the message that humanity has faced climate fluctuations and extreme weather events throughout history … and survived them, dealt with them, adapted to them, prospered. That there is no real-world evidence that manmade greenhouse gas emissions – especially the trivial amounts generated by agriculture – have replaced the powerful natural forces that caused past climate changes.

They increasingly realize that organic and subsistence farming requires vastly more land – which would otherwise be wildlife habitats – than modern mechanized farming to get the same yields. Plowing those habitats would decimate plant and animal diversity.

That locking up fossil fuels and relying instead on biofuels and plant-based feedstocks for thousands of essential products would require even more acreage. So would mining for massive amounts of metals and minerals to manufacture wind, solar, and battery technologies.

Most importantly, they understand that humanity today has far greater wealth, far more knowledge, far better technologies, and resources than any past generations.

To suggest that we cannot adapt to climate changes or survive and recover from extreme weather events is simply absurd. To suggest that farmers should revert to … or remain stuck in … ancient farming practices and technologies – to save the world from computer-generated manmade climate disasters – is eco-imperialism at its most lethal.

South Africa’s electricity minister recently said his country will not be “turned into a guinea pig for a worldwide Green New Deal.” Hopefully, all developing countries will soon apply that same attitude to anarchists who would use the world’s poor as guinea pigs in global agricultural and nutrition experiments.

AUTHOR

Paul Driessen

EDITORS NOTE: This CFACT column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Why does war exist?

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Why War? by Richard Overy | W. W. Norton & Co., 2004, 304 pages

The question of why war exists is a commonly asked one. Why have human beings throughout the history of the species engaged in organised violence against one another? In our modern world, why do educated and mostly civilised people support the large-scale slaughter of their fellow man?

A distinguished military historian like Richard Overy — whose greatest expertise relates to those most destructive of wars waged during the 1930s and 1940s — is well-placed to try to answer this.

Published in June, Overy’s Why War? is an ambitious work.

His book is broken down into two sections. Firstly, Overy examines the general causes of warfare, surveying the theories which have been proposed and the evidence which has been uncovered in areas such as biology, psychology, anthropology and ecology.

Secondly, he looks at the specific motives for warfare under four headings: resources, belief, power and security. These, he stresses, are not mutually exclusive. Many wars will be waged for more than one reason, even if one reason is cited as casus belli.

Ancient conflicts

It is most welcome that Overy rightly dismisses the modern trend to overlook lethal violence from the pre-state past, as if organised violence was something relatively new in human history.

He cites chilling archaeological evidence of ancient massacres, including the discovery of the remains of 66 human beings who were mostly butchered with axes near Vienna around 7,000 years ago.

On the question of biological determinism and the controversial claim of Harvard entomologist Professor Edward Wilson that aggression was innate, Overy suggests that recent research on behavioural genetics has mostly vindicated Wilson’s findings.

If our genes explain some part of this mystery, the evolution of human psychology is another factor worth pondering.

“The evolution of a psychology for warfare is a universal, species-typical adaptation, even though it is manifested in different locations and times in a variety of ways,” Overy writes.

This psychological basis for conflict can be as extreme as those martial values cultivated in ancient Sparta or amongst the Vikings, or it can be observed in the sanitised military culture of any modern army.

When combined with a strong in-group attachment — and expressed against an out-group enemy — this warrior spirit can become extraordinarily lethal.

Prehistoric conflict is particularly interesting. As Overy explains, there are serious challenges involved in interpreting the archaeological evidence of such conflict, whether that be skeletal trauma, iconography such as cave drawings of battles, weaponry or fortifications.

While historians can continue to argue over whether conflicts between small tribes can really warrant the term ‘warfare’, it takes an incredible amount of naivety to follow the example of Jean Jacques Rousseau in assuming that our ancestors lived peaceful and idyllic lives.

One case-in-point is the Alpine iceman, Ötzi, whose frozen remains were discovered in 1991, more than 5,000 years after his death.

Ten years after this discovery, analysis showed that in Ötzi’s back, there was an arrowhead. On his blade, there was the blood of at least three different humans.

Competition and religion

The second half of the book is less interesting, dealing with the various reasons why groups choose to engage in warfare. Resource shortages are certainly important, and Overy references the cross-cultural work of Carol and Melvin Ember, who found that a fear of resource scarcity has led to the great majority of conflicts.

Gold or slaves were the prizes of choice in the past, just as oil has been a crucial factor in many cases since the Industrial Revolution began. In the coming decades, wars may be fought over the critical raw materials upon which the modern economy is built. Alternatively, in a return to the past, wars could be waged over access to that most crucial resource: clean water.

With virtually all wars having multiple causal factors, there has been a tendency in this secular age to refuse to seriously examine the role of religious belief in explaining conflicts. Conversely, anti-religious voices (the Marxist writer Christopher Hitchens, for example) have often wildly overstated religion’s role in their struggle to bully their way to a secularist society.

In the post-9/11 world, Overy suggests that “historians and social scientists have begun to argue that belief must be injected back into any analysis of warfare where religious or ideological motives can be seen to be paramount.”

This represents some progress, even if the return to bloodshed represents atavism. The conflicts that exist between countries and within countries cannot be solved unless they are understood, and that will often require a more serious religious dialogue than has been heard in recent times.

Current pre-war era

Arguably, the most important geopolitical development in recent years has been the collapse of the ‘End of History’ narrative which Francis Fukuyama put forward when arguing that liberal democracy would become the universal form of government after the Cold War.

What we are now witnessing is a return to history: the renewed willingness of autocracies to wage industrial-scale warfare, the rearming of Europe and the growing importance of alliances and great power rivalry.

In this situation, Overy’s book is timely and very worthwhile, even if the writing style is rather dull, possibly due to the difference between this type of book and the great historical narratives in which he has specialised up until now.

In his conclusion, Overy quotes his fellow academic, Kenneth Waltz.

“Theorists explain what historians know: War is normal.”

A more captivating quote would have been from Cormac McCarthy’s ‘Blood Meridian’, when Judge Holden hears his accomplices discussing the morals of warfare, and quickly silences them.

“It makes no difference what men think of war,” the monstrous Judge, the Devil incarnate, tells them.

“War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way.”

As leaders ready their countries’ defences in preparation for an uncertain future, it is also time to arm ourselves with knowledge of why war is so large a part of the human experience. This book is a very good place to start.

What do you think of this book’s thesis? Comment below.

AUTHOR

James Bradshaw writes from Ireland on topics including politics, history, culture, film and literature.

EDITORS NOTE: This Mercator column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

UCLA Riots Were About So Much More Than Just The Israel-Hamas War

/in , , , , , , , , /by

What started as routine leftist protests in April quickly turned into a battle for the UCLA campus — and the Daily Caller’s investigative reporters were on the ground to document it all.

April protests over the Israel-Hamas war quickly turned to encampments on the picturesque UCLA quad. This set the stage for riots as anti-Israel activists, pro-Israel counter-protesters, and the Los Angeles Police Department all clashed in the wee hours of the night.

The Daily Caller’s new documentary, “Anarchy U,” captured it all as it unfolded in real time: the violence, the building takeovers, the construction and destruction of the encampment and the power struggle between might, right and the law.

But in documenting the chaos, we uncovered the motives of the anti-Israel protesters go far deeper than just Palestinian solidarity. They even go beyond the destruction of Israel. What they seek is nothing less than the destruction of the entire Western world order.

“Anarchy U” is available exclusively to Patriots members. Catch an exclusive first glimpse below.

You’ve most likely heard anti-Israel protesters’ favorite buzzword repeated ad nauseam since the Oct. 7 attack: “Decolonization now!” they demand.

This term has countless iterations. It’s not just Israel that must be “decolonized,” but American society, the developing world, schools, medicine, media, and culture ― seemingly the entire world suffers under the legacy of colonialism.

But colonization no longer exists, you might be thinking. We live in a global community of nations, and in first world countries like America and Israel at least, we all have guaranteed to safeguard us from arbitrary tyranny. So what does this decolonization crowd really want?

Investigative reporter Cam Higby was able to paint a clearer picture as he infiltrated the encampments at UCLA. The same people chanting for Intifada at UCLA often had a broader array of goals. “It’s BLM version two,” Higby explains.

Higby documents the rallies, as organizers call not just for the “liberation” of Palestinians, but of “workers, and all of the multitude of oppressed.”

“Let’s fight for a socialist world, and against this vicious capitalism of U.S. imperialism,” the agitator continues.

To the anti-Israel crowd, Israel is just a small part of a larger imperialist whole. Decolonization is nothing but Marxism, repackaged for a modern audience under the umbrella of identity politics.

For Marx, it was proletariat versus bourgeois, or the worker who was exploited by his capitalist boss. Today’s Marxists take the same oppressor-victim formula and broaden it out — way out. Colonized vs. colonizer, black vs. white, female vs. male, gay vs. straight — all are formulations of the new Marxism.

In America, the post-war standard of living was just too high to agitate workers against capitalists, so the Marxists needed to get creative. Instead, they took a real instance of historical oppression in America — slavery and anti-black racism — and built a new founding around it. Racism, it’s said by these new Marxists, is just the inevitable outcome of exploitative capitalism. It’s a tool used to ensure the wealthy and the powerful remain wealthy and powerful. That’s how we wind up with ideas like “system racism,” a phantom menace that can only truly be defeated once capitalism is overthrown in the West — the purpose of decolonizing American life from the supposed scourge of white supremacy.

Europe doesn’t have the same painful legacy of slavery, so the new Marxists targeted the European history of colonialism. Again, it’s a true instance of past injustice, abstractly defined to move the present world towards Marxism. The third world today isn’t underdeveloped because of any choice they did or didn’t make.  Rather, they are behind due to centuries of Western oppression, the legacy of which continues through capitalism. They can never catch up when the West had such a head start. Once again, the only solution is to overthrow the system entirely.

You might be thinking: Israel doesn’t fit neatly into either category. But for the decolonization crowd, Israel is nothing but an outpost of white, European “settler colonialism.” It was “stolen” by colonizers, and given to European Jews at the expense of “Palestinians.” Under this line of thinking, the only true “justice” is Intifada, literally the “shaking off” of Israel and the entire Western order.

But the destruction of Israel is not enough. The goal, forever and always, is world revolution. It can’t happen in one country alone. It must happen everywhere, all at once — a constant battle for “decolonization” — or the oppressors will always find a way to hold on to power.

So when anti-Israel protesters grasp at the mantle of morality and justice, know that they are lying. They don’t want a better world. They want a world in which they call the shots, a Marxist hellscape, where everyone is worse off except them.

Watch “Anarchy U” today to learn more about the insidious motives of the anti-Israel protesters, and how they intersect with BLM, Antifa, and all the leftist groups who want to see the American way of life destroyed.

AUTHOR

GAGE KLIPPER

Commentary and analysis writer.

RELATED ARTICLE: America Is A Mess Because Of Democrat Policies, Not Just Biden

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Daily Caller’s documentary productions are made possible by our faithful Patriots members, and we wouldn’t be able to do it without them. To watch “Anarchy U” — and to help support future investigative documentaries — please consider subscribing.

Secretive Bilderberg Meeting Concludes in Madrid with War, War, and More War on the Agenda

/in , , , , , /by

Globalist elites representing the rich and powerful in politics, banking, big tech, media, industry, and academia converged in Madrid, Spain, on May 30-June 2 to discuss the launching of World War III and policies meant to advance the global control grid and one-world system.

While most of the attention this year was on the WHO World Health Assembly in Geneva, the Bilderbergs met secretly in Madrid for their 70th annual conference. (Go to my Substack to read about the shocking turn of events on June 1 at the WHO World Health Assembly)

Topics of discussion at the shadowy Bilderberg conference included artificial intelligence, “climate change,” the “future of warfare” and “changing faces of biology.”

The full list of announced topics discussed at the annual globalist conference were as follows.

  • State of AI
  • AI Safety
  • Changing Faces of Biology
  • Climate
  • Future of Warfare
  • Geopolitical Landscape
  • Europe’s Economic Challenges
  • US Economic Challenges
  • US Political Landscape
  • Ukraine and the World
  • Middle East
  • China
  • Russia

Besides AI, transhumanist issues surrounding the “changing faces of biology,” and economic issues, notice that most of the remaining topics are related to the growing global conflicts that appear headed toward open warfare being conducted between nuclear-armed superpowers in multiple theaters — U.S./NATO against the Russians in Ukraine, war in the Middle East, and war the Far East involving China-Taiwan and potentially on the Korean peninsula.

The issue of “AI safety” likely had to do with the globalists’ plan to remove anonymity from the Internet and make all online parties take on a digital ID, thus making it easier to censor and punish online voices that disagree with the prevailing globalist narratives.

Founded in 1954 with a meeting hosted by Prince Bernhard of The Netherlands in the Hotel de Bilderberg in the Dutch village of Oosterbeek, the annual meeting of the Bilderberg Group is believed to be a driving force behind major globalist projects and initiatives.

Unlike similar institutions such as the World Economic Forum, the Bilderbergs meet strictly behind closed doors with participants sworn to secrecy according to the so-called Chatham House Rule. This rule prohibits the disclosure of the identity of those behind any idea mentioned during the meeting.

The shroud of secrecy surrounding the meeting of Bilderberg globalists has led to many theories regarding the influence the conference may exert on the policy of various nations and corporations.

Breitbart reports that a 2023 study from Lukas Kantor of Prague’s Charles University found that at least 133 politicians were elevated to positions of power after attending a Bilderberg meeting, including former U.S. President Bill Clinton, ex-German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and current French President Emmanuel Macron.

According to Kantor, at least 42 participants became either prime ministers, presidents, or the top officials of international organizations such as the European Union, NATO or the International Monetary Fund.

Kantor wrote:

“From 2019 to 2023, all key international organizations—EU, NATO, IMF, and UN—have been chaired by Bilderbergers (Ursula von der Leyen, Jens Stoltenberg, Kristalina Georgieva and Antonio Guterres). It seems improbable that this is just a coincidence.”

It’s interesting that war is on the agenda for Bilderberg 2024.

Almost every Western nation is on board with pushing the Russia-Ukraine conflict into one of the main theaters of World War III, which more than likely will turn nuclear at some point.

The only two countries in the West that have leaders firmly against expanding the war are Hungary and Slovakia. The prime minister of Hungary, Viktor Orban, is under pressure to resign over trumped up allegations of corruption and the prime minister of Slovakia, Robert Fico, was shot four times in an assassination attempt last month (he miraculously survived). Any Western leader who dares to oppose the policies of the globalist elite risks being eliminated by one means or another.

But that hasn’t stopped PM Viktor Orban of Hungary.

Hundreds of thousands participated in a peace march in Hungary’s capital of Budapest on Saturday, June 1, denouncing the EU’s policy of escalating tensions with Russia.

The event culminated with a speech by Orban, who accused Brussels of bringing Europe to the brink of World War III.

The demonstrators marched from the iconic Chain Bridge to Margaret Island on the Danube River.

Many carried flags, chanted anti-war slogans, and held signs reading “No war” and “Give us peace, Lord.”

Prime Minister Orban then addressed the crowd, saying:

“Never before have so many people lined up for peace. We are the biggest peace corps, the largest peacekeeping force in Europe. Europe must be prevented from rushing into war, into its own destruction.”


Orban said his country must draw lessons from the devastation it went through during the darkest times of the 20th century.

He told the crowd:

“In the two world wars, the Hungarians lost 1.5 million lives, and with them – their future children and grandchildren. I’m saying this slowly so that Brussels would understand: we will not go to war. We will not go to the East for a third time, we will not go to the Russian front again.”

Orban urged everyone to support the “pro-peace and pro-sovereignty” agenda of the ruling Fidesz party in the European Parliament election next week, adding, “Do we want to shed Hungarian blood for Ukraine? No, we don’t.”

There were also large protests in Berlin this weekend. You won’t hear much about this growing anti-war movement on NBC, ABC, CNN or Fox News. No American or European parents or grandparents in their right minds wish to see their young people sent off to fight Russians in defense of the corrupt Western proxy nation of Ukraine. But that’s exactly where the Bilderbergs, Trilateralists, WEF’rs and their puppet leaders are driving us.

©2024. Leo Hohmann. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: 70th Bilderberg meeting in Madrid focuses on future of warfare and global challenges

RELATED VIDEO: Viktor Orbán: NATO countries appear to be creating a mood for a larger war

Must-Read Vatican Document Slams Surrogacy, Gender Theory, War and Abortion

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

Earlier this week the Vatican published a 16,000-word document reaffirming Catholic condemnations of a wide range of moral issues, from war to surrogacy and human trafficking. Dignitas Infinita, or “Infinite Dignity”, is both a philosophical and a theological essay, appealing to open-minded people of all faiths and none.

Seldom has there been so much media coverage about a Vatican document which contains so few surprises. It’s no secret that the Catholic Church opposes abortion and euthanasia. Perhaps both the fans and foes of Francis thought that he might open up a crack for sex changes or for surrogacy.

But almost nothing has changed. Under Francis the Church is as severe as ever on life issues. Over at the New York Times, columnist Ross Douthat opined that the Pope’s “style has been to consistently push at the boundaries of his office, testing how far a pope can go in altering Catholic teaching”. He sounded mortified to report that Dignitas Infinita was “a clearer-than-usual line against developments in progressive thought and culture”.

Controversial issues

Here are some notable highlights.

Dignitas Infinita condemns surrogacy, first as a violation of the child’s dignity and second as a violation of the surrogate mother’s. It says:

the legitimate desire to have a child cannot be transformed into a “right to a child” that fails to respect the dignity of that child as the recipient of the gift of life … in this practice, the woman is detached from the child growing in her and becomes a mere means subservient to the arbitrary gain or desire of others.

The document also rejects gender theory. In a few perceptive sentences, it criticises the transhumanist impulse to “self-determination”, describing it as “a concession to the age-old temptation to make oneself God”. Furthermore, it describes the difference between male and female as “foundational”.

In the male-female couple, this difference achieves the most marvellous of reciprocities. It thus becomes the source of that miracle that never ceases to surprise us: the arrival of new human beings in the world.

Sex-change interventions are also condemned. The document quotes the Pope: “creation is prior to us and must be received as a gift. At the same time, we are called to protect our humanity, and this means, in the first place, accepting it and respecting it as it was created.”

One possible innovation in Dignitas Infinita is its approach to war. While lamenting the cruelty and senselessness of wars, the Catholic Church has traditionally supported the possibility of a “just war”. However, with weapons of mass destruction, asymmetric warfare and terrorism, perhaps the nature of war has changed. The document quotes the Pope — “it is very difficult nowadays to invoke the rational criteria elaborated in earlier centuries to speak of the possibility of a ‘just war.’ Never again war!”

Does this mean that requirements for a just war will be updated? Possibly.

Explaining human dignity

Even though there appears to be little novelty in Dignitas Infinita, it was five years in the making. The Pope’s top theologian, fellow Argentinian Cardinal Victor Fernández, explains in an unusual preamble that the document went through several versions, because the Pope had ordered some significant changes. He wanted the list of violations of human dignity to include issues like poverty, the wretchedness of migrants, violence against women, human trafficking, and war.

This is consistent with Francis’s impatience with what he feels is some Catholics’ single-minded focus on abortion and other pro-life issues. Dignitas Infinita endorses the notion that Catholic moral teaching is a “seamless garment” and that abusing migrants and abortion are both horrendous violations of human dignity.

But what is human dignity? The first half of the document offers a very helpful and thoughtful exploration of the topic.

It begins with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights whose 75th anniversary occurred last year. After the barbarism of World War II, the UDHR was a high-minded commitment by its signatories to restore a respect for human dignity. Its opening sentence asserts “the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family”. John Paul II described the UDHR as “one of the highest expressions of the human conscience”.

However, it’s obvious that the concept of human rights has become so muddled that it is almost meaningless. Accompanied by claims to be advancing human dignity, rights have multiplied and morphed. Nowadays internet access, air conditioning and same-sex marriage are claimed as human rights, along with a right to abortion.

Although this is a very complex question, one reason for this proliferation is that people base their approach to human dignity on different foundations.

The Church’s approach is ontological; human dignity flows from the very fact of being a human being created by God. This means that all humans have dignity, not just those who possess privileges like awareness or intelligence or autonomy. Notoriously, Peter Singer (and other philosophers) say that “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”

In a brief, but very insightful observation, Dignitas Infinita analyses Singer’s notion of human dignity (without naming him):

Some people propose that it is better to use the expression “personal dignity” (and the rights “of the person”) instead of “human dignity” (and the rights “of man”) since they understand a “person” to be only “one who is capable of reasoning.” They then argue that dignity and rights are deduced from the individual’s capacity for knowledge and freedom, which not all humans possess. Thus, according to them, the unborn child would not have personal dignity, nor would the older person who is dependent upon others, nor would an individual with mental disabilities. On the contrary, the Church insists that the dignity of every human person, precisely because it is intrinsic, remains “in all circumstances.”

As well, the document deploys a very important concept: that we humans are relational beings. Fundamentally, none of us are individuals. We are all bound up in a web of relations with other humans, past, present and future: “Indeed, there is an ever-growing risk of reducing human dignity to the ability to determine one’s identity and future independently of others, without regard for one’s membership in the human community.”

The document condemns “a self-referential and individualistic freedom that claims to create its own values regardless of the objective norms of the good and of our relationship with other living beings” Unless one grasps this, it may be hard to appreciate why the Church rejects surrogacy, transgenderism, euthanasia and so on.

Dignitas Infinita may contain no surprises, but its clarity and consistency are admirable. It’s a good springboard for responding to today’s ethical challenges.

Does the Catholic Church have anything valuable to say about human rights? Leave a comment in the box below.

AUTHOR

Michael Cook is editor of Mercator.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Major UK report throws transgender medicine onto the rubbish heap

Celebrity queer philosopher Judith Butler fights to vindicate her life’s work

Enver Hoxha tried to make Albania the world’s only officially atheist state. He failed miserably

POST ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Mercator column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Israel Passes Law To Temporarily Shut Down Al Jazeera

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

The Knesset, Israel’s parliament, passed a law Monday that would allow the government to temporarily close foreign news networks deemed a national security threat, The Times of Israel reported.

The law — known as the Al Jazeera law — is geared towards shutting down the popular Arabic news channel Al Jazeera in Israel, according to the outlet.

The law itself will reportedly allow shut downs for a period of 45 days but could be extended in additional 45-day increments, the outlet reported.

“There will be no freedom of speech for Hamas mouthpieces in Israel. Al Jazeera will be closed in the coming days. We have brought an efficient and quick tool for action against those who use the freedom of the press to harm Israel’s security and IDF soldiers and incite terrorism in times of war,” Israel’s Minister of Communications Shlomo Karhi tweeted in Hebrew.

“We will act immediately!” Karhi vowed.

“Al Jazeera harmed Israel’s security, actively participated in the October 7 massacre, and incited against IDF soldiers. It is time to remove the shofar of Hamas from our country. The terrorist channel Al Jazeera will no longer broadcast from Israel. I intend to act immediately in accordance with the new law to stop the channel’s activity,” Israeli Prime Benjamin Netanyahu tweeted in Hebrew.

Al Jazeera, a Qatar-based news network, is particularly accused by Israeli officials of glorifying Hamas and terrorism against Israelis.  One example cited by critics of the Arabic news outlet’s protection of Hamas was when one of its reporters attempted to cut off an elderly wounded Gazan who was speaking critically of Hamas for hiding among civilians, according to the English translation.

AUTHOR

ILAN HULKOWER

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Al-Jazeera’s Gaza Script Sabotaged By Their Ally Hamas

Al Jazeera Spied On American Jews For A Documentary And It’s About To Premier

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

RFK Jr. Comes Out Against Gaza Ceasefire

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. strongly questioned the wisdom of a ceasefire in Gaza during an interview with Reuters on Wednesday.

“I don’t even know what that means right now,” Kennedy, who is running as an independent, told Reuters in response to a question about a temporary ceasefire.

Kennedy argued that Hamas had used every previous ceasefire to merely “rebuild and then launch another surprise attack,” the outlet noted.

“So what would be different this time?” Kennedy asked Reuters.

Kennedy argued that Israel had not chosen to fight the current war and blamed Hamas for rejecting a two-state solution and for its history of aggression.

“Any other nation that was adjacent to a neighboring nation that was bombing it with rockets, sending commandos over to murder its citizens, pledging itself to murder every person in that nation and annihilate it, would go and level it with aerial bombardment,” he said. “But Israel is a moral nation. So it didn’t do that. Instead, it built an Iron Dome to protect itself so it would not have to go into Gaza.”

Kennedy told Reuters that the Oct. 7 attack — which killed over 1,200 people and left some 250 as Hamas hostages — left Israel with no other option but to invade Gaza.

“[T]he scale of these attacks means it is likely that Israel will need to wage a sustained military campaign to protect its citizens,” Kennedy tweeted the day of the terrorist attack. “Statements of support are fine, but we must follow through with unwavering, resolute, and practical action. America must stand by our ally throughout this operation and beyond as it exercises its sovereign right to self-defense.”

Kennedy’s rejection of a ceasefire with Hamas puts the ex-Democrat at odds with an increasing number of prominent politicians in his former party.

A group of House Democrats, including Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib and Missouri Rep. Cori Bush, introduced a ceasefire resolution on Oct. 16, 2023; Democratic Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley wrote an article backing a ceasefire on Nov. 20; and Vice President Kamala Harris endorsed an “immediate ceasefire” on March 3.

AUTHOR

ILAN HULKOWER

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The American betrayal of Israel

‘We Have To Do Something’: Mike Rowe Responds To Being Put On RFK Jr.’s VP Shortlist

DC Drops Reportedly Charges Against Gold Star Dad Who Interrupted Biden State Of The Union

POST ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

What is War, and How Are We to Wage It?

/in , , , , , , /by

There is an entire portion in the Torah that begins “when you go to war” (Ki Teitzei, Deut. 21:10)… not “if”, but “when.” We are given specific rules about what we can and cannot do throughout the Torah, Talmud, and later texts.

But in today’s world, the lines of “war” are not as clear. We’re clearly in the midst of war, but with whom? How should we act? These are not easy questions, and worth looking at as we are beginning our sixth month of war in Israel.

Some things are clear. We are to destroy Amalek completely. If we experience perpetrators on the weak, sick, old, young… we can define that perpetration (both externally as a physical enemy and internally as addiction) as Amalek; and it must not be negotiated with, but utterly destroyed.

Given the events of Oct. 7, it is clear that Hamas is a modern Amalek and must be destroyed.

That example is pretty self-evident.

When at war, we are to be compassionate as well with enemies who are not Amaleks. The Torah teaches how we are to treat people other than Amalek, and the underlying concept is that our goal in war is not victory per se, but lasting peace.

This is one of the reasons that many of us were hesitant to believe that any IDF soldiers fired in civilians last week who were trying to aid from convoy trucks in Gaza. Our suspicions have now been totally confirmed thanks to footage from multiple drones. The IDF never fired at any person heading to the trucks. Footage shows that the only shots fired by Israel were at people who were attacking the soldiers: not heading towards the convoy at all, but violently charging the soldiers. Again, the reports of Hamas were lies, and proven to be so by now released drone footage.

What about Hezbollah? Like Hamas, they have vowed to destroy Israel and obliterate all Jews in the worldwide caliphate they seek to create. They send rockets almost daily into northern Israel, and displaced almost 100,000 Israelis from their homes. But despite their verbal vows, they have not enacted “Amalek-type” behavior as Hamas did on Oct. 7. They attack haphazardly, but not with the conscious intent of specifically targeting children and the weak. Based on the conflict in the north, it is the hope that a miracle can happen, and that a lasting peace can be created without needing their complete destruction. Unlike Hamas, they have not crossed the Rubicon, and it is still the hope and prayer that a lasting peace can be structured with them.

While the news was filled today with the State of the Union speech, there was also a small bit of news that radically affects Israel, and potentially the US/Israel relationship. Although any student of history or geo-politics realizes that a “two state solution” is a philosophical and practical impossibility, the President made it clear in his speech that this is his intention. He even went as far to say that the US will be building a port in Gaza. But to build a port or base in a foreign country without permission is actually considered an act of war. By that accepted definition, Biden declared an intention of a war act against Israel… Gaza is recognized as part of Israel even by the UN, so wouldn’t building a port or base there without Israel’s permission be an act of war? And is it the intention of the U.S. to build and man a port on foreign soil? And for how long? These are questions that many Israelis and international political scientists have been discussing since President Biden made the announcement of his intended port today.

But the greatest war is always our individual war with our own “yetzer hara”…our personal “evil inclination”. We must do what must be done, but we must never take joy in it. We must destroy Hamas, but feel the sadness of having to kill anyone…even the Hamas terrorists who have surrendered their own souls in their quest for a caliphate. And at the same time, we need to remember that the yetzer hara can be manifest just as easily as a desire for mercy when there should be none. Amalek must be destroyed, even though doing that is painful.

We must remember that our greatest ally in any war; both with an external enemy or with our inner yetzer hara, is always God. He brings us to victory over external enemies as well as the ally that allows us to rid ourselves of things like addictions, evil behavior, or any problem in our lives both individually and collectively.

As these wars continue, may we all find within them the opportunity to deepen our relationship with God and each other.

EDITORS NOTE: This Newsrael column by Rabbi Michael Barclay is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Meet the Terrorists Entering the USA

Prime Minister Netanyahu: Israel ‘weeks away from victory’ once IDF begins Rafah Operation

/in , , , , , /by

February 25, 2024 / JNS — Once the IDF launches its military operation in Gaza’s southernmost city of Rafah, it will be “weeks away from total victory,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told CBS News on Sunday.

Plans for the IDF offensive in Rafah, Hamas’s last stronghold in the Gaza Strip, will be reviewed by the political echelon on Sunday, the premier said in an interview with CBS‘s “Face the Nation.”

The potential hostages-for-ceasefire deal under discussion in Doha won’t stop the IDF from operating in the city, Netanyahu added.

“If we have a deal, it will be delayed somewhat, but it [the Battle of Rafah] will happen. If we don’t have a deal, we’ll do it anyway,” he stated.

“We very much want to achieve another [hostage] release and we are prepared to go far, but we are not prepared to pay any price, certainly not the delusional prices that Hamas is demanding of us, the meaning of which is the defeat of the State of Israel,” said Netanyahu last week.

“I speak with world leaders every day. I tell them decisively: Israel will fight until we achieve total victory. And indeed, this includes action in Rafah, of course after we allow the civilians found in the combat zones to evacuate to safe areas,” said Netanyahu.

“Whoever wants to prevent us from operating in Rafah is telling us in effect to lose the war. I will not allow this. … We will not surrender to any pressure. We will not surrender, because we are a people of heroes. We will not surrender because we are a people that desires life. We will not surrender because we must—must—defeat the evil,” he added.

The comments came after U.S. President Joe Biden demanded a temporary ceasefire to secure the release of hostages in Gaza, claiming that a deal “has to” go through before Israel launches a military operation in Rafah.

In a call on Thursday with Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, Lloyd Austin, the U.S. secretary of defense, raised “the need for a credible plan to ensure the safety of and support for the more than one million people sheltering in Rafah before any military operations proceed there.”

“We have worked out a detailed plan to do so. And that’s what we have done up to now,” explained Netanyahu. “We are not cavalier about this. This is part of our war effort, to get civilians out of harm’s way. It’s part of Hamas’s effort to keep them in harm’s way. But we’ve so far succeeded and we are going to succeed again.”

RELATED ARTICLE: ARAB VOICES: Arabic Twitter has this to say about PM Netanyahu

POSTS ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Newsrael column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Reflections on Russia-Ukraine War — 2 Years Later

/in , , , , , /by

This is a repost of an article authored by a priest in the Orthodox Church of America whose wife is Ukrainian and still has family in Ukraine. The article was written two years ago, just as the war broke out, and as I read over it, it struck me how it could have easily been written yesterday. Truth is like that. It ages well. Below is an excerpt from his article, published February 25, 2022, under the title A Reflection on Ukraine, America, Russia, and War

A Reflection on Ukraine, America, Russia, and War

By Fr. Zachariah Lynch

Few it seems have cared, up until now, that the faithful of Ukraine are being subjected to spiritual violence (which has manifested physically). Few it seems have cared that the Ecumenical Patriarchate is in open and full communion with unrepentant schismatics.

(To educate yourself on the Ukrainian government’s pernicious work to divide the Orthodox in that country and use one side to commit violence against the other, see my article from last year, U.S./NATO-funded proxy war in Ukraine fueling hatred, persecution of ancient Christian community.)

So spiritual violence has been ravaging Ukraine, and few have said much. We value a nominal “peace” above true peace, for true peace cannot be had in communion with false brethren. Now major physical violence is taking place, but what is worse for the soul, spiritual or material violence?

Could it be that the assault on the spiritual peace of Ukraine has affected its physical peace?

How many Americans have been aware that there has been an effective civil war in eastern Ukraine since 2014? How many of us were concerned when Ukrainians were shooting at and killing Ukrainians? Was that okay?

As an American, I will speak to my country. I’m not in Russia. I don’t support the attack. But, we, as Americans, should ask ourselves – is Russia doing anything much different than our own country has done? When in the 21st century alone have we “respected” other nations’ sovereign boards? (Look at our southern border at current!)

At the end of the 20th century, it was a US-led NATO that dismantled Yugoslavia. New borders, created by the US and friends, were established. These borders served US interests. Let us look at the Middle East, when did we respect borders there? The US has stated and acted upon the notion – if a leader is deemed bad and against “freedom and democracy,” it is a duty to overthrow such a leader and carve up the country as the Western powers see fit. When we do it, it is “good.” When Russia does the same thing, it is bad. (Again I’m not justifying anything, I’m making an analogy.) The US government is the epitome of the pot calling the kettle black, as are most of the European powers. Let us as Americans reflect that in this century alone our government waged almost none stop war since 2001. The US government has been in conflict with some countries or states for two decades. If we go back and count the years starting from the end of World War II, the number of years of war or conflict involving the US government is much more than the number of years with no conflict. And we are going to lecture the world on peace? All that to say, we are guilty of the very things we accuse Russia of doing. I guess that is called hypocrisy. The finger we are pointing at Russia is dripping with blood. Maybe we should wash our own hands first.

I’m an American. I honor my country, but I do not support the agenda of war and violence driving much of foreign policy. I’m very grieved by it. Let us take care of our own house first. As in many places, I do not think the government always reflects the people. I think most people want peace and to live their daily lives in calm. Sadly, there are many in power who are hell-bent on stirring up conflict and trouble for the world and people at large. We should also realize that US foreign policy has also played a role in cultivating the current events in Ukraine.

I think that a part of what is transpiring is the typical distraction tactic. The Covid crisis has revealed that the “free” West is not as “free” as it claims. Many Western countries went full dictator mode, thus revealing their true colors. Oh, yes, of course, to keep us all safe because they care for us from their million-dollar mansions. America is in deep crisis and turmoil, much of it fed by certain agendas that are actively seeking to encourage fear, hatred, and division. Our own house is tumbling and corroding away. Oh, but look! That dastardly Putin! He’s a new Hitler. I guess it takes one to know one. In America, the attempt is being made to distract us again. And yes some are insane enough to pursue a war with Russia to do so. I don’t know how far the events will go, but I do know from history that war is a great distraction and even a wonderful tool for “rebuilding” the world.

Of course, one could wander down the labyrinth of geopolitical agendas. I’m familiar with a number of them. I won’t do that right now. The historic discrimination of the Western world against Orthodoxy could be noted as an aspect also. But that is a big subject.

In closing to this my few thoughts, I will return to the spiritual aspect.

What can we as Christians do? Repent. Russia, for all its problems, is not our enemy.

Have we in America repented of the many wars and atrocities perpetrated in the name of our country? Should we not start there? Are we repenting for the “legal” slaughter of babies in their mother’s womb? Are we repenting for the open promotion, in the name of our country, of numerous forms of debauchery and immorality? Are we repenting for the epidemic of drug abuse and suicide in our nation? Are we repenting for being the top exporter of corrosive “culture” and “values?” Are we repenting for the destruction of the family and the explosion of divorce, adultery, fornication, and porn? This list could go on. It seems our own house is full of enemies.

Read the entire article here.

Copyright 2024. Leo Hohmann. All rights reserved.

LeoHohmann.com is 100 percent reader supported, not beholden to any corporate ads or sponsorships. If you appreciate the independent analysis you see here and would like to support my work, you may send a donation of any size c/o Leo Hohmann, P.O. Box 291, Newnan, GA 30264, or via credit card HERE. Thank you.

OAN VIDEO: Xi Allegedly Told Biden He Plans To Take Taiwan ‘Peacefully’

/in , , , , , , /by

We have been reporting on how “Beijing” Biden and his foreign policies have lead to war in Europe between Russian and Ukraine, in the Middle East between Israel and Iran’s proxies Hamas and Hezbollah and in South America with the invasion of Guyana by Communist Venezuela.

Now we have this breaking news about yet another potential war in the far East between China and Taiwan.

One America News reports, “During President Biden’s meeting with China’s Xi Xinping last month, the Chinese leader allegedly told him China still intends on taking Taiwan.”

One America’s Chief White House Correspondent Monica Paige breaks down the details in the below video.

WATCH: Xi Allegedly Told Biden He Plans To Take Taiwan ‘Peacefully’

©2023. One America News. All rights reserved.

U.S. Army BG (Ret.) John Adams: Will Biden Administration continue support or obstruct Israel’s victory over Hamas in Gaza?

/in , , , , , , /by

Jerry Gordon, a Senior Editor of The New English Review, invited retired U.S. Army Brigadier General John Adams (Ret.) for this fourth in a series of discussions on Israel Defense Force military doctrine and strategic options in the conduct of the Jewish state’s civilizational war with Iran-backed Hamas terrorist group in Gaza. He addresses the conflict given his extensive background as a 30-year veteran of combat, staff and international military diplomatic assignments and post-service informal analysis and discussions with former Senior IDF commanders.

Among the issues covered in this wide-ranging discussion are:

  1. Biden Administration attempts to force Israel to “scale down” Gaza operations conflicts with IDF objective of destroying and displacing jihadist Hamas.
  2. Biden Administration “day after” two state solution, modeled on failed 1993 Oslo Accords, is rejected by the Netanyahu government because of national security concerns. PLO – Fatah was routed by Hamas in 2006 Gaza elections and both groups share same objective: destruction of Jewish state.
  3. Discovery of massive Hamas tunnel near Israeli Erez Gaza crossings and failure of border high tech Iron Wall in Hamas breach on October 7th – Israel’s “Maginot Line” – are priorities to be investigated in post-conflict intelligence failures investigation.
  4. Hamas discussions with Egyptian intelligence on new round of pauses include release of 40 to 50 of remaining Israeli captive in exchange for longer pause and increased humanitarian aid and release of Israeli Palestinian security prisoners.
  5. Other “Day After” solutions reviewed include “One State” proposal by noted Israeli geo-political commentator Caroline Glick based on Arab Clan governance of municipalities and pathway to Israeli citizenship and New State proposal of former Senior IDF officers- an expansion of Gaza into Egyptian Sinai – “Singapore” on Mediterranean Coast.
  6. Iran is behind proxy Yemen’s Houthi rebel drone and ballistic missile attacks in support of Hamas in Gaza threaten global war and maritime risks in Red Sea and transit via Suez Canal. USS Destroyer Carney successfully repulsed Houthi drone and missile attacks.  Defense Secretary Austin announced formation of international maritime task force in Operation Prosperity Guardians composed of US, Britain, Bahrain, Canada, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Seychelles and Spain.
  7. Iran is also behind Hizballah as it threatens rocket and precision guided missile barrages to northern and central Israel. Hizballah has an inventory of upwards of 150,00 rickets and missiles. The IDF has conducted air attacks, in response to rocket and mortar attacks. Israel has evacuated an estimated 200,000 from both northern and southern communities. Defense Minister Gallant announced possible limited incursion of 18 kilometers to Litani river in Southern Lebanon to destroy Hizballah positions. The Biden Administration maintains one US Navy Carrier Battle Group offshore Lebanon (another CBG is in the Persian Gulf) to prevent a widening war in the Middle East.
  8. Israel needs to complete its mission of destroying or displacing Hamas without significant delays to avoid rising costs to its economy.

WATCH: Will Biden Administration continue support or obstruct Israel victory over Hamas in Gaza War?

About BG John Adams, USA (Ret.)

Brigadier General John Adams retired from the US Army in September 2007. Currently an independent defense consultant, he is also studying toward a PhD in Political Science at the University of Arizona, with a research focus on European security institutions. His final military assignment was as Deputy United States Military Representative to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Military Committee in Brussels, Belgium, the highest military authority of NATO. He worked closely with military representatives of NATO and Partnership for Peace member nations to develop policy recommendations for the political authorities of the Alliance, and helped coordinate the transfer of authority in Afghanistan from US to NATO control.

Born and raised in the Washington, DC, area, General Adams was a Distinguished Military Graduate and received a Regular Army commission from North Carolina State University Army ROTC in 1976. As a Foreign Area Officer, Military Intelligence Officer, and Army Aviator, his more than thirty years of service in command and staff assignments includes nearly eighteen years in Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, including assignments with US Embassies in Belgium (1994-1997), Rwanda (1996), Croatia (1998-2001), and South Korea (2002-2003), where as an Army Foreign Area Officer and military attaché, he provided political-military advice to US Ambassadors, combatant commanders, US Government authorities in Washington, visiting US Government delegations, and represented the United States with foreign government officials regarding national and regional issues. As an Army Aviator, he has more than 700 hours as pilot-in-command in fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft including the UH-1D, OV/RV-1D Mohawk, and RU-21 Guardrail Special Electronic Mission Aircraft.

On September 11, 2001, he was stationed at the Pentagon as Deputy Director for European Policy in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and directly participated in immediate disaster recovery operations at the crash site as well as coordinated international support for the US diplomatic and military response. He is a veteran of Operation Desert Storm (1991), Operation Guardian Assistance in Rwanda (1996), and served and traveled extensively on official business throughout the Balkans from 1998-2003. He traveled on temporary duty to both Iraq and Afghanistan in 2004.

General Adams holds Masters in International Relations (Boston University), English (University of Massachusetts), and Strategic Studies (US Army War College). He taught English at West Point from 1988-90. He is proficient in French, Dutch, German, and Croatian.

John and his wife, Laura Magan MD, make their home in Tucson. They enjoy sailing, hiking, and cooking. He has two daughters, the oldest who graduated from the College of William and Mary in 2008 and now works as a program coordinator with Operation Smile in Norfolk, Virginia, and the youngest who is a senior at the University of Mary Washington in Fredericksburg, Virginia.

©2023. Jerry Gordon. All rights reserved.

REPORT: U.S. Warship, Multiple Commercial Ships Under Attack In Red Sea

/in , , , , , , , /by

An American warship and several commercial ships came under attack Sunday in the Red Sea, the Associated Press (AP) reported.

“We’re aware of reports regarding attacks on the USS Carney and commercial vessels in the Red Sea and will provide information as it becomes available,” the Pentagon said, without identifying the source of the attack, per the AP news report.

The attack began at about 10 a.m. in Sanaa, Yemen, and had lasted as long as five hours, with the Carney intercepting at least one drone during the attack, some unnamed U.S. officials reportedly told the AP.

Brig. Gen. Yahya Saree, a military spokesperson for the Iran-linked, Yemen-based Houthi rebels said the Houthis took responsibility for attacking two Israeli ships in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait that links the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden with a drone and a missile, The Times of Israel reported. The Houthis reportedly did not mention the attack on the Carney but reportedly added that the attacks would continue for as long as the Israel-Hamas war lasts.

The British military simply said there were drone attacks and explosions in the Red Sea, per the AP.

A rocket hit a Bahamian-flagged British vessel sailing off Yemen’s western coast, per the Times of Israel.

Before the reported attack on the Carney, there reportedly were at least 38 similar attacks on U.S. troops in the Middle East since Hamas’ Oct. 7 terror attacks on Israel.

The reported attack occurred a day after the U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin rallied Saturday for American leadership on the world stage in his keynote address at the Reagan National Defense Forum in Simi Valley, California.

“The world built by American leadership can only be maintained by American leadership,” Austin said. “From Russia to China, from Hamas to Iran, our rivals and foes want to divide and weaken the United States — and to split us off from our allies and partners. So at this hinge in history, America must not waver. … [T]he cost of abdication has always far outweighed the cost of leadership.”

AUTHOR

JOHN OYEWALE

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

U.S. Warship Shoots Down Iranian-Made Drone Launched From Yemen

Ships face Houthi-claimed attack in Red Sea as officials say a US warship also fires in self-defense

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

GAZA: Mis-Conceptualizing the Conflict, Miscomprehending the Enemy

/in , , , , , , /by

One of the reasons that the conflict with the Palestinian-Arabs in general and Gazan Arabs in particular, has dragged on for years, is that Israel has failed to conceptualize the conflict correctly.

There is a prevailing myth that the general population in Gaza is the hapless victim of its radical leadership. This is demonstrably false.

Crucible, not victim

Indeed, the population in Gaza is not the victim of its Islamist leaders! On the contrary, it is the crucible in which that leadership was forged and from which it emerged.

Nothing can underscore the gruesome truth of that assertion more indelibly than this excerpt from a chilling telephone conversation between an elated Gazan terrorist and his enthralled parents—rejoicing over the slaughter of Israeli civilians.

TERRORIST: Hello Dad. Dad Open your WhatsApp right now and see…how many I killed with my own hands. Your son killed Jews.

FATHER: God is great God is great. May God protect you.

TERRORIS: [F]ather. I am talking to you from the phone of a Jew, I killed her and her husband, I killed ten with my own hands.

FATHER: God is great.

TERRORIST:       I killed ten. Ten! Ten with my own bare hands. Their blood is on my hands, let me talk to Mom.

MOTHER: Oh, my son, may God protect you.

TERRORIST: I killed ten all by myself, mother.

MOTHER: I wish I was there with you.

This is the nature of the enemy. This is the human condition—or rather the inhuman condition with which Israel is compelled to contend.

Nothing as practical as good theory

This failure of Israeli society to grasp the true dimensions—the depth, and durability—of Arab rejection of Jewish sovereignty has long been reflected in both its domestic policy and in its foreign policy towards the nation’s Arab adversaries. Nowhere is this failing more glaring than in Israeli policy toward the Palestinian-Arabs in general, and toward the Arabs of Gaza in particular.

At this point, we would do well to recall the wise dictum of eminent social psychologist, Kurt Leven, who observed: “There is nothing so practical as a good theory.” After all, action, without comprehension is a little like swinging a hammer without knowing where the nails are, just as hazardous—and just as harmful. In this regard, good theory creates an understanding of cause and effect and hence facilitates effective policy.

Accordingly, to devise effective policy to contend with abiding Arab enmity, Israel must correctly conceptualize the conflict over the issue of Jewish sovereignty in the Holy Land.

Archetypical zero-sum game

The unvarnished truth is that—correctly conceptualized—the conflict between the Jews and the Palestinian-Arabs over the control of the Holy Land is a clash between two rival collectives, with irreconcilable foundational narratives.

They are irreconcilable because the raison d’etre of the one is the preservation of Jewish political sovereignty in the Holy Land, while the raison d’etre of the other is the annulment of Jewish political sovereignty in the Holy Land—thus generating irreconcilable visions of homeland.

As such, the conflict between the Jews and the Palestinian-Arabs is an archetypical zero-sum game, in which the side’s gains inevitably imply the other side’s loss.

As such it is a clash involving protagonists with antithetical and mutually exclusive core objectives. Only one can emerge victorious; the other vanquished. There are no consolation prizes!

Consequently, as a clash of collectives, whose outcome will be determined by collective victory or defeat, it cannot be personalized. The fate of individual members of one collective cannot be a deciding determinant of the policy of the rival collective—and certainly, not a consideration that impacts the probability of collective victory or defeat.

Grudgingly accepted or greatly feared?

Thus, Israel’s survival imperative must dictate that it forgo any expectation of eventual approval from the Arabs. For the foreseeable future, this seductive illusion will remain an unattainable pipe dream. Rather, Israel must reconcile itself to the stern, but sober, conclusion: The most it can realistically hope for is to be grudgingly accepted; the least it must attain is to be greatly feared.

Any more benign policy goals are a recipe for disaster.

To underscore the crucial importance of this seemingly harsh assessment, I would invite any prospective dissenter to consider the consequences of Jewish defeat and Arab victory. Indeed, a cursory survey of the gory regional realities should suffice to drive home the significance of what would accompany such an outcome.

Accordingly, only once a decisive Jewish collective victory has been achieved, can the issue of individual injustice and suffering in the Arab collective be addressed as a policy consideration. Until then, neither the individual well-being nor the societal welfare of the opposing collective can be considered a primary policy constraint.

After all, had the imperative of collective victory not been the overriding factor of the Allies’ strategy in WWII, despite the horrendous civilian causalities that it inflicted on the opposing collective, the world might well have been living in slavery today.

In weighing the question of the fate of individual members of the opposing collective, it is imperative to reiterate the point made at the start of this column: the Palestinian-Arab collective is not the hapless victim of radical terror-affiliated leaders. Quite the opposite. It is, in fact, the societal crucible in which they were forged, and from which they emerged. Indeed, its leadership is a reflection of, not an imposition on, Palestinian-Arab society.

Accordingly, the Palestinian-Arab collective must be considered an implacable enemy—not a prospective peace partner…and it must be treated as such.

©2023. Martin Sherman. All rights reserved.