JUNE 6, 2016

Random interesting stuff with the significance of JUNE 6, 2016...

• #1 June 6, 2016 is being looked at as 666

(see below for more information)

• #2 Atheist Pride Day, D-Day

• #3 A rare astrological alignment of Venus behind the Sun

• #4 One Jubilee of 49 years after the Israelis took back over East Jerusalem and the Temple Mount

• #5 The Egyptian pyramids will provide direction to Bethlehem (supposedly regarding a descending shift, anti-messiah)

• #6 Will be the start to WWIII after Europe closes its boarders to refugees (it will primarily be with China and Russia against U.S.)

__________________

Regarding #1

"Daniel: 7 The USA and Obama

‘The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it. The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. 

After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings. He will speak against the Most High and oppress his holy people and try to change the set times and the laws. The holy people will be delivered into his hands for a time, times and half a time."
CLICK HERE FOR LINK TO THIS POST

"No Trump Presidency 2016-2019 Obama Antichrist

The research for David Montaigne's previous book (End Times and 2019) leads him to conclude 
that the first three and a half years, although full of problems like earthquakes and wars and 
rumors of wars – will not be intense enough to make anyone assume the world is ending. Only 
the second three and a half years will clearly be “great tribulation.” That being said, the final 
seven years already began on December 21, 2012 – when plans were made for the “Covenant 
of Peoples” tour in Israel and the Mayan Long Count ended. When Daniel talks about a midpoint 
halfway through these seven years, I believe he is referring to June 2016. The duration of his 
first time period is repeated often using different phrases to avoid possible misinterpretation. 
“Time, times, and half a time” are considered to be three and a half years, or 42 months, or 
“1260 days” using 42 months of 30 days each. Adding Daniel’s next number of “1290 days” 
gets us within a few days of an exact seven years in total – but it still leaves us with an extra 
3 days of darkness to add to each half to reach an exact seven years. The two witnesses will
lie dead in the street for three days at the end of the second half. I believe the extra 3 days at 
the end of the first three and a half years can be explained by an assassination attempt on the 
Antichrist exactly 1260 days into Daniel’s 70th week on June 3, 2016. He will appear to be 
mortally wounded at first, but in a tragic mockery of Christ’s resurrection, he will rise fully 
healed 3 days later, and present himself at the site of the Temple in Jerusalem as God on 
earth on June 6, 2016.

As on earth, so it is in heaven: when the Antichrist enters the Temple, Venus appears to enter 
the Sun. The Morningstar (Lucifer/Antichrist=Venus) enters the Temple (goes directly behind 
the Sun/altar of fire in the Temple.) As the Sun also represents Christ, and Venus is on the 
opposite (anti-) side we have our astronomical Antichrist in the right position. This is a rare 
event that happens on just 9 days every 105 years… And even the date fits activity for the 
Antichrist – the sixth day of the sixth month of a year ending in six – the only 6-6-6 date 
during the entire tribulation.

The odds of Venus going behind the sun on any given day are about 9/(105*365.25) – about 1 
in 4261 odds. It only happens on a 6-6-6 date one day out of every 15,563,302 days. That 
means on average it would not happen again like this for about 42,611 years. It is a VERY 
rare sign.

There are many other clues pointing to this date which require a more detailed explanation. 
The easiest one to explain in this short article is the JUBILEE.

In the Old Testament, God commanded the Israelites to let the land rest every 7 years and have 
a Sabbath year. After 7 Sabbath years, they were also told to celebrate a jubilee year. Every 49 
years, debts were forgiven, slaves were freed, and land which had been “sold” (leased really, the 
prices were even based on how many years were left before the next jubilee) reverted back to 
its original owner. This was to remind them that GOD owned the land and the people.

What better date could be chosen by someone standing at the temple in Jerusalem claiming to be 
God – than the date exactly one jubilee after the Israeli army liberated East Jerusalem and the 
Temple Mount? The Israelis entered East Jerusalem on June 6, 1967, and by morning had taken 
back the entire city, including the Temple Mount. Forty-nine years later we have June 6, 2016, 
when the Antichrist will try to mimic Christ and claim that it is time for possession of the land 
and the people to revert back to him. Many Christians expect the Second Coming at the end of a 
jubilee cycle, and notice that Daniel’s 70 sevens of years (490 years as described in Daniel 
9:24-27) equals ten jubilee cycles and would end with the tenth jubilee. In the Jewish 
commentaries known as the Talmud, Elijah says “on the last Jubilee the Son of David will come.” 
(Sanhedrin 97b) Though the Antichrist will show up in the middle of Daniel’s final week of years, 
and not on a biblical jubilee – he will try to claim that he is our Messiah and that he fulfills this
prophecy – on June 6, 2016.

My previous book (End Times and 2019) briefly addresses this as the midpoint of the final seven 
years, but its focus is really on the final events of December 2019. For more on the events of 
June 6, 2016 – including the identity of the Antichrist – read Antichrist 2016-2019: Mystery 
Babylon, Barack Obama & the Islamic Caliphate.

— contributed by David Montaigne, author of End Times and 2019 and Antichrist 2016-2019

and (as of November 2015) The Two Witnesses of Revelation: Will Elijah and Moses Return in 
2016?

This newest little e-book on the Two Witnesses is a short and inexpensive introduction to my 
timeline of events, which explains: “When my first books came out, I knew I was still missing 
something if my timeline didn’t perfectly align with the 1260, 1290, and 1335 day periods in the 
book of Daniel. I finally found the missing piece of the puzzle regarding the two witnesses 
(I already had it before and hadn’t recognized the significance of it) and now I know my timeline 
already was perfectly aligned with Daniel’s numbers…“

His prediction is Barrak Obama on 6-6-2016 !"

Click Here For Link To This Post

Another post here...CLICK HERE

___________________________

Regarding #2

Here is more on this...CLICK HERE

____________________

Regarding #3

"Venus at superior solar conjunction

Mon, 06 Jun 2016 at 14:15 PDT


From our vantage point on the Earth, Venus will appear very close to the Sun in the sky as it passes around the far side of the solar system from the Earth.

At closest approach, Venus and the Sun will appear at a separation of only 0°00', making Venus totally unobservable for several weeks while it is lost in the Sun's glare.

Venus will also pass apogee – the time when it is most distant from the Earth – within a few days of the same time, since it will lie exactly opposite to the Earth in the Solar System. It will move to a distance of 1.74 AU from the Earth, making it appear small and very distant. If it could be observed, it would measure 9.6 arcsec in diameter, whilst appearing completely illuminated.

Venus's reaching superior conjunction marks the end of its apparition in the morning sky and its transition to become an evening object over the next few weeks.

...the superior planet is "in opposition" to the Sun as seen from the inferior planet.


He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.


2 Thessalonians 2:4

666

_______________________

Regarding #4

Here is more on this one...CLICK HERE

__________________________

Regarding #5

Here is more on this one...CLICK HERE

___________________________

Regarding #6

Here's more on this one...CLICK HERE

A Protester's Death Could Widen The Unrest In The Middle East.

The Gaza Conflict Reverberates in the West Bank and Jordan

November 19, 2012 | 1818 GMT

Summary
A Palestinian who was wounded Nov. 17 during protests in the West Bank against Israel's ongoing operations in the Gaza Strip has died from his injuries, the Palestinian Ma'an news agency reported Nov. 19. The West Bank has been calm in recent years, but significant protests have been taking place across the eastern Palestinian territory -- which is ruled by Hamas' secular rival, Fatah -- in response to Israel's Operation Pillar of Defense. The protester's death could widen that unrest. 

These developments have implications in Jordan, where the regime of King Abdullah II is also struggling with political unrest. The duration of the Israeli-Gaza conflict will determine the extent of the brewing unrest in the West Bank and the toll it has on Jordan. 

Analysis 
The ongoing conflict between Hamas and Israel has generated a significant amount of sympathy for Hamas in the West Bank. In some parts of the territory, anti-Israeli youth protesters have thrown stones and Molotov cocktails at Israeli security forces patrols. The protests, while at a low level for now, complicate matters for the administration of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. 

While the Arab Spring created conditions that increased the power of Hamas, it also added to the woes of Fatah, which has been deteriorating for some time. The group suffers from an aging leadership, internal splits, corruption charges amid poor economic conditions in the West Bank and a failure to make progress toward Palestinian statehood in negotiations. Thus, it is no surprise that Fatah, despite its deep animosity toward Hamas, has come out in support of its rival and in solidarity against Israel. Fatah likely chose not to interfere with the West Bank protests to avoid aggravating matters, but it cannot allow the protests to spiral out of control. 

Fatah is hoping that Hamas and Israel reach a truce as soon as possible. Indeed, the West Bank group is likely using its channels with the United States and Israel toward this end. Clearly, Fatah does not want protests in the West Bank to go from supporting Hamas and Gaza to turning against mismanagement in the West Bank. At the same time, this could be a reason why Hamas, which seeks a resurgence in the West Bank, would want to prolong the conflict somewhat. 

The stirring of turmoil in the West Bank is very worrisome for Jordan, which neighbors the Palestinian territory and is home to a large population of Palestinian heritage that harbors anti-Israeli sentiments. The ruling Hashemites do not want to see the Gaza issue spill over Jordan's borders and accentuate their own problems. 

Jordan's Problems 

The effects of the Arab Spring have not really manifested themselves in Jordan, but the kingdom has not been stable either. Since the outbreak of the regional unrest in early 2011, King Abdullah II has replaced three prime ministers in response to low-level but steady protests. The dilemma that the Hashemites face is that unrest has spread into the ranks of the tribal forces (aka East Bankers), who until recently have served as the bedrock of the monarchy's stability. At the same time, in urban areas, the country's largest political movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, has departed from its traditional role as the loyal opposition and begun demanding that the palace share power with parliament. 

Meanwhile, the economic situation in the country has deteriorated to the extent that the government was forced to cut fuel subsidies earlier this month. The public backlash to the rising energy costs has intensified the protests. In the early months of the Arab Spring, there were isolated cases of tribal youths chanting slogans against the Jordanian king and queen. Such instances of public criticism -- some even calling for the king to step down -- 
appear to be growing. 

Still, neither the rural-based tribal principals nor the urban-centered Brotherhood appear to be interested in trying to topple the monarchy. Indeed, both have made it clear that they do not wish to see unrest turn into anarchy. But the problem is that neither institution seems to have a monopoly over the protests; youth groups and other non-brand entities are driving some of the agitation. 

The Brotherhood, which has long called for the kingdom to cut ties with Israel, has once again raised this demand. Such calls have not gained traction in the past. But in the post-Arab Spring atmosphere -- and now with the conflict in Gaza -- the demand could become a tool for the Brotherhood to extract even greater concessions from the palace. Already, the king has been on the defensive, asking the Brotherhood to end its boycott of the political system and participate in upcoming parliamentary polls. Moreover, after restoring ties with Hamas earlier this year, the king has sought the mediation of Hamas chief Khaled Meshaal toward this end. 

It is too early to tell what domestic political gains the Brotherhood could obtain by leveraging the fighting in Gaza. But the king's persistently defensive approach could lead to apprehension within his camp about whether he has what it takes to steer the country out of its downward spiral. Any fissures within the ranks of the Hashemite state will lead only to greater instability. Over the longer term, instability in Jordan breeds the same in the West Bank, where the ruling Palestinian National Authority has been unable to resolve its own political problems. 
source: https://www.stratfor.com

Israel and Gaza: Then and Now

November 19, 2012

Four years ago on Nov. 4, while Americans were going to the polls to elect a new president, Israeli infantry, tanks and bulldozers entered the Gaza Strip to dismantle an extensive tunnel network used by Hamas to smuggle in weapons. An already tenuous truce mediated by the Egyptian government of Hosni Mubarak had been broken. Hamas responded with a barrage of mortar and rocket fire lasting several weeks, and on Dec. 27, 2008, Israel began Operation Cast Lead. The military campaign began with seven days of heavy air strikes on Gaza, followed by a 15-day ground incursion. By the end of the campaign, nearly 1,000 poorly guided shorter-range rockets and mortar shells hit southern Israel, reaching as far as Beersheba and Yavne. Several senior Hamas commanders and hundreds of militants were killed in the fighting. Israel Defense Forces figures showed that 10 IDF soldiers died (four from friendly fire), three Israeli civilians died from Palestinian rocket fire and 1,166 Palestinians were killed -- 709 of them combatants.

The strategic environment during the 2008-2009 Operation Cast Lead was vastly different from the one Israel faces in today's Operation Pillar of Defense. To understand the evolution in regional dynamics, we must return to 2006, the year that would set the conditions for both military campaigns.

Setting the Stage

2006 began with Hamas winning a sweeping electoral victory over its ideological rival, Fatah. Representing the secular and more pragmatic strand of Palestinian politics, Fatah had already been languishing in Gaza under the weight of its own corruption and its lackluster performance in seemingly fruitless negotiations with Israel. The political rise of Hamas led to months of civil war between the two Palestinian factions, and on June 14, Hamas forcibly took control of the Gaza Strip from Fatah. Just 11 days later, Hamas kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalt and killed two others, prompting a new round of hostilities with Israel. 

In what appeared to be a coordinated move, Hezbollah on July 12 launched its own raid on Israel's northern front and kidnapped two additional soldiers, kicking off the month-long Second Lebanon War. As Israel discovered, Hezbollah was well-prepared for the conflict, relying on an extensive tunneling system to preserve its launching crews and weaponry. Hezbollah made use of anti-tank guided missiles, improvised explosive devices that caught Israel Defense Forces by surprise and blunted the ground offensive, and medium-range rockets capable of reaching Haifa. Hezbollah incurred a heavy toll for the fight, with much of the infrastructure in southern Lebanon devastated and roughly 1,300 Lebanese civilian casualties threatening to erode its popular support. Casualty numbers aside, Hezbollah emerged from the 2006 conflict with a symbolic victory. Since 1973, no other Arab army, much less a militant organization, had been able to fight as effectively to challenge Israel's military superiority. Israel's inability to claim victory translated as a Hezbollah victory. That perception reverberated throughout the region. It cast doubts on Israel's ability to respond to much bigger strategic threats, considering it could be so confounded by a non-state militant actor close to home. 

At that time, Hamas was contending with numerous challenges; its coup in Gaza had earned the group severe political and economic isolation, and the group's appeals to open Gaza's border, and for neighbors to recognize Hamas as a legitimate political actor, went mostly unheeded. However, Hamas did take careful note of Hezbollah's example. Here was a militant organization that had burnished its resistance credentials against Israel, could maintain strong popular support among its constituents and had made its way into Lebanon's political mainstream. 

Hezbollah benefited from a strong patron in Iran. Hamas, on the other hand, enjoyed no such support. Mubarak's Egypt, Bashar al Assad's Syria, Jordan under the Hashemites and the Gulf monarchies under the influence of the House of Saud all shared a deep interest in keeping Hamas boxed in. Although publically these countries showed support for the Palestinians and condemned Israel, they tended to view Palestinian refugees and more radical groups such as Hamas as a threat to the stability of their regimes. 

While Hamas began questioning the benefits of its political experiment, Iran saw an opportunity to foster a militant proxy. Tehran saw an increasingly strained relationship between Saudi Arabia and Hamas, and it took advantage to increase funding and weapons supplies to the group. Forces from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' Quds Force, along with Hezbollah, worked with Hamas to expand the group's weapons arsenal and build elaborate tunnels under the Gaza Strip to facilitate its operations. Israel soon began to notice and took action toward the end of 2008. 

Operation Cast Lead 

Hamas was operating in a difficult strategic environment during Operation Cast Lead. Hezbollah had the benefit of using the rural terrain south of the Litani River to launch rockets against Israel during the Second Lebanon War, thereby sparing Lebanon's most densely populated cities from retaliatory attacks. Hamas, on the other hand, must work in a tightly constricted geographic space and therefore uses the Palestinian population as cover for its rocket launches. The threat of losing popular support is therefore much higher for Hamas in Gaza than it is for Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. At the same time, operating in a built-up urban environment also poses a considerable challenge for the Israeli military. 

During Operation Cast Lead, Cairo did little to hide its true feelings toward Hamas. Though Egypt played a critical role in the cease-fire negotiations, it was prepared to incur the domestic political cost of cracking down on the Rafah border crossing to prevent refugees from flowing into Sinai and to prevent Hamas from replenishing its weapons supply. The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, then in the opposition, took advantage of the situation to publicly rally against the Mubarak regime, but its protests did little to change the situation. Hamas was boxed in by Egypt and Israel. 

The rest of the region largely avoided direct involvement. Turkey was focused on internal affairs, and Saudi Arabia remained largely aloof. Jordan's Hashemite rulers could afford to continue quietly cooperating with Israel without facing backlash. The United States, emerging from an election, was focused on shaping an exit strategy from Iraq. Many of Hamas' traditional wealthy Gulf donors grew wary of attracting the focus of Western security and intelligence agencies as fund transfers from the Gulf came under closer scrutiny. 

Iran was the exception. While the Arab regimes ostracized Hamas, Iran worked to sustain the group in its fight. Tehran's reasoning was clear and related to Iran's emergence as a regional power. Iraq had already fallen into Iran's sphere of influence (though the United States was not yet prepared to admit it), Hezbollah was rebuilding in southern Lebanon, and Iranian influence continued to spread in western Afghanistan. Building up a stronger militant proxy network in the Palestinian territories was the logical next step in Tehran's effort to keep a check on Israeli threats to strike the Iranian nuclear program. 

In early January 2009, in the midst of Operation Cast Lead, Israel learned that Iran was allegedly planning to deliver 120 tons of arms and explosives to Gaza, including anti-tank guided missiles and Iranian-made Fajr-3 rockets with a 40-kilometer (25-mile) range and 45-kilogram (99-pound) warhead. The Iranian shipment arrived at Port Sudan, and the Israeli air force then bombed a large convoy of 23 trucks traveling across Egypt's southern border up into Sinai. Though Israel interdicted this weapons shipment -- likely with Egyptian complicity -- Iran did not give up its attempts to supply Hamas with advanced weaponry. The long-range Fajr rocket attacks targeting Tel Aviv and Jerusalem in the current conflict are a testament to Iran's continued effort.

The Current Geopolitical Environment 

Hamas and Israel now find themselves in a greatly altered geopolitical climate. On every one of its borders, Israel faces a growing set of vulnerabilities that would have been hard to envision at the time of Operation Cast Lead. 

The most important shift has taken place in Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood carefully used the momentum provided by the Arab Spring to shed its opposition status and take political control of the state. Hamas, which grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood, then faced an important decision. With an ideological ally in Cairo, Egypt no longer presents as high a hurdle to Hamas' political ambitions. Indeed, Hamas could even try to use its ties to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood to achieve political legitimacy. When unrest spread into Syria and began to threaten Iran's position in the Levant, Hamas made a strategic decision to move away from the Iran-Syria axis, now on the decline, and to latch itself onto the new apparent regional trend: the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and its Islamist affiliates across the Arab world. 

This rise of the Muslim Brotherhood spread from Egypt to Syria to Jordan, presenting Israel with a new set of challenges on its borders. Egypt's dire economic situation, the political unrest in its cities, and the Muslim Brotherhood's uneasy relationship with the military and security apparatus led to a rapid deterioration in security in Sinai. Moreover, a Muslim Brotherhood government in Cairo on friendly terms with Hamas could not be trusted to crack down on the Gaza border and interdict major weapons shipments. A political machine such as the Muslim Brotherhood, which derives its power from the street, will be far more sensitive to pro-Palestinian sentiment than will a police state that can rule through intimidation. 

In Syria, Israel has lost a predictable adversary to its north. The balkanization of the Levant is giving rise to an array of Islamist forces, and Israel can no longer rely on the regime in Damascus to keep Hezbollah in check for its own interests. In trying to sustain its position in Syria and Lebanon, Iran has increased the number of its operatives in the region, bringing Tehran that much closer to Israel as both continue to posture over a potential strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. 

To Israel's east, across the Jordan River valley, pressure is also growing on the Hashemite kingdom. An emboldened Muslim Brotherhood has been joined by disillusioned tribes from the East Bank in openly calling for the downfall of the king. High energy costs are severely blunting the kingdom's ability to contain these protests through subsidies, and the growing crisis in Gaza threatens to spread instability in the West Bank and invigorate Palestinians across the river in Jordan. 

Beyond its immediate periphery, Israel is struggling to find parties interested in its cause. The Europeans remain hostile to anything they deem to be excessive Israeli retaliation against the Palestinians. Furthermore, they are far too consumed by the fragmentation of the European Union to get involved with what is happening in the southern Levant. 

The United States remains diplomatically involved in trying to reach a cease-fire, but as it has made clear throughout the Syrian crisis, Washington does not intend to get dragged into every conflagration in the Middle East. Instead, the United States is far more interested in having regional players like Egypt and Turkey manage the burden. The United States can pressure Egypt by threatening to withhold financial and military aid. In the case of Turkey, there appears to be little that Ankara can do to mediate the conflict. Turkish-Israeli relations have been severely strained since the 2010 Mavi Marmara incident. Moreover, although the Turkish government is trying to edge its way into the cease-fire negotiations to demonstrate its leadership prowess to the region, Ankara is as wary of appearing too close to a radical Islamist group like Hamas as it is of appearing in the Islamic world as too conciliatory to Israel. 

Saudi Arabia was already uncomfortable with backing more radical Palestinian strands, but Riyadh now faces a more critical threat -- the regional rise of the Muslim Brotherhood. Islamist political activism poses a direct threat to the foundation of the monarchy, which has steadfastly kept the religious establishment out of the political domain. Saudi Arabia has little interest in the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood encouraging Hamas' political rise, and Riyadh will thus become even more alienated from the Palestinian theater. Meanwhile Gulf state Qatar, which has much less to lose, is proffering large amounts of financial aid in a bid to increase its influence in the Palestinian territories. 

Iran, meanwhile, is working feverishly to stem the decline of its regional influence. At the time of Operation Cast Lead, Iran was steadily expanding its sphere of influence, from western Afghanistan to the Mediterranean. A subsequent U.S. military buildup in the Persian Gulf and an intensifying U.S.-led economic warfare campaign slowed Iran down, but it was the decline of the al Assad regime that put Iran on the defensive. An emboldened Sunni opposition in Syria, backed by the West, Turkey and the Arab Gulf states, could spill into Lebanon to threaten Hezbollah's position and eventually threaten Iran's position in Iraq. With each faction looking to protect itself, Iran can no longer rely as heavily on militant proxies in the Levant, especially Palestinian groups that see an alignment with Iran as a liability in the face of a Sunni rebellion. But Iran is also not without options in trying to maintain a Palestinian lever against Israel. 

Hamas would not be able to strike Tel Aviv and Jerusalem with long-range rockets had it not been for Iran, which supplied these rockets through Sudan and trained Palestinian operatives on how to assemble them in Gaza. Even if Hamas uses up its arsenal of Fajr-5s in the current conflict and takes a heavy beating in the process, Iran has succeeded in creating a major regional distraction to tie down Israel and draw attention away from the Syrian rebellion. Iran supplied Hezbollah with Zelzal rockets capable of reaching Haifa during the 2006 Second Lebanon War. Hamas was limited to shorter-range Qassam and Grad rockets in Operation Cast Lead but now has Iranian-made Fajr-5s to target Israel's most cherished cities. 

Hamas is now carrying the mantle of resistance from Hezbollah in hopes of achieving a symbolic victory that does not end up devastating the group in Gaza. Israel's only hope to deny Hamas that victory is to eliminate Hamas' arsenal of these rockets, all the while knowing that Iran will likely continue to rely on Egypt's leniency on the border to smuggle more parts and weaponry into Gaza in the future. The Hamas rocket dilemma is just one example of the types of problems Israel will face in the coming years. The more vulnerable Israel becomes, the more prone it will be to pre-emptive action against its neighbors as it tries to pick the time and place of battle. In this complex strategic environment, Operation Pillar of Defense may be one of many similar military campaigns as Israel struggles to adjust to this new geopolitical reality. 

source: https://www.stratfor.com

A Pause for Negotiations in the Israeli-Hamas Conflict

November 18, 2012

By George Friedman

The Israeli-Hamas conflict has entered into a negotiation phase. Both sides want talks. Hamas wants them because any outcome that prevents an Israeli ground assault gives it the opportunity to retain some of its arsenal of Fajr-5 rockets; the Israelis want them because the cost of an invasion could be high, and they recall the political fallout of Operation Cast Lead in 2008, which alienated many European and other governments.

No matter how much either side might want to avoid ground warfare, negotiations are unlikely to forestall an Israeli assault because Hamas' and Israel's goals leave little middle ground.

One of Hamas' main goals in this current round of fighting is to retain enough Fajr-5 rockets to allow it to threaten the Israeli heartland, the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem corridor. If they succeed, Hamas will have gained a significant lever in its relations with the Israelis. The Israeli goal is to deny Hamas these rockets. The problem for the Israelis is that this requires a ground assault in order to have any chance of success. The Israelis may think they know where the rockets are, but they cannot be certain. Airstrikes can target known facilities, at least those where rockets are not stored in hardened underground bunkers. But only by going in on the ground with substantial force will the Israelis have the opportunity to search for and destroy the rockets.

Finding middle ground will be difficult. The retention of the Fajr-5 both dramatically improves Hamas' strategic position and gives Hamas the chance to further weaken the Palestinian National Authority. Hamas cannot agree to any deal that takes the rockets away -- or that does not at least leave open the possibility that it could have them. Meanwhile, Israel simply cannot live with the Fajr-5 in the hands of Hamas.

Lack of International Involvement

It is interesting to note the remarkable indifference of most countries that normally rush to mediate such disputes, the United States chief among them. Washington has essentially endorsed the Israeli position so strongly that it has no option to mediate. The Turks, who had been involved with the Gaza issue during the flotilla incident of May 2010, have taken no steps beyond rhetoric in spite of relations with both Hamas and Israel. The Saudis have also avoided getting involved.

The Egyptians have been the most active in trying to secure a cease-fire: Beyond sending their prime minister into Gaza on Nov. 16, as well as their intelligence chief and a group of security officials, Cairo then hosted a delegation of senior Hamas and Islamic Jihad members to further this goal. But while the Egyptians have a great interest in preventing an Israeli ground invasion of Gaza and are crucial to the Israeli imperative to prevent weapons smuggling via Gaza, there is little more they can do at present to mediate between the two sides.

If no one seems to want to serve as mediator, it is because there is such little room for negotiation. It is not ideology but strategy that locks each side into place. Hamas has come this far and does not want to give up what it has maneuvered for. Israel cannot allow Hamas a weapon that threatens the Israeli heartland. This situation is too serious for the parties to reach an agreement that ends the hostilities for now but in reality simply pushes back the issues to be addressed later. No one is eager to mediate a failure. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon has said he will go to Gaza in the coming week, but he will not be in a position to find middle ground.

Israel will not budge on this. Hamas could be compelled to relent under threat from its core financial supporters in the Arabian Peninsula, but these states, such as Qatar, are all far more concerned with the threat posed by Iran. The fact that these rockets likely originated with Iran ought to give them incentive to lean on Hamas.

Dubious Prospects for Negotiations

It is important to bear in mind that the war is already under way. Israeli airstrikes are intense and continuous. Hamas is firing rockets at Israel. What has not yet happened is a direct ground attack on Gaza by the Israelis, although they have been mobilizing forces and should now be in a position to attack if they so choose. But the Israelis would much rather not attack. They fear the consequences -- measured both in human casualties and in political fallout -- that would certainly follow.

Thus, both sides want a negotiated end on terms that would leave the other side in an impossible position. While Hamas might be able to live with the status quo, Israel cannot. A negotiated end is therefore unlikely. Still, both sides are signaling their willingness to talk, and however forlorn the possibilities, there is a chance that something could be arranged.

We remain of the opinion that this current pause will be followed by a ground assault. Only by expanding the discussion beyond the Fajr-5 to a broader settlement of Hamas-Israeli issues could these negotiations succeed, but that would require Hamas recognizing Israel's right to exist and Israel accepting the equivalent of a Palestinian state run by Hamas in Gaza -- one that might spread its power to the West Bank. The more expansive the terms of these negotiations get, the more dubious their prospects for success -- and these negotiations start off fairly dubious as it is.

Read more: A Pause for Negotiations in the Israeli-Hamas Conflict | Stratfor 

Updated 1-30-2012 : Austere Challenge 12. Will A False Flag Lead To WW3? False Flag Defined.

What is a false flag?

As a pretext for war...

The Mukden incident in 1931 involved Japanese officers fabricating a pretext for annexing Manchuria by blowing up a section of railway. Six years later in 1937 they falsely claimed the kidnapping of one of their soldiers in the Marco Polo Bridge Incident as an excuse to invade China proper.^{[citation needed]}
The Gleiwitz incident in 1939 involved Reinhard Heydrich fabricating evidence of a Polish attack against Germany to mobilize German public opinion for war, to establish casus belli for war, and to justify the war with Poland. This, along with other false flag operations in Operation Himmler, would be used to mobilize support from the German population for the start of World War II in Europe.^{[citation needed]}
The Kassa attack in 1941 involved the city of Kassa, today Košice (Slovakia), which was then part of the Hungary, being bombed by three unidentified planes of apparently Soviet origin. This attack became the pretext for the government of Hungary to declare war on the Soviet Union.
The replacement of Iran's Anglo-Persian Oil Company with five American oil companies and the 1953 Iranian coup d'état in 1953 was the consequence of the U.S. and British-orchestrated false flag operation, Operation Ajax. Operation Ajax used political intrigue, propaganda, and agreements with Qashqai tribal leaders to depose the democratically elected leader of Iran, Mohammed Mosaddeq. Information regarding the CIA-sponsored coup d'etat has been largely declassified and is available in the CIA archives.^[8]
The planned, but never executed, 1962 Operation Northwoods plot by the U.S. Department of Defense for a war with Cuba involved scenarios such as fabricating the hijacking or shooting down passenger and military planes, sinking a U.S. ship in the vicinity of Cuba, burning crops, sinking a boat filled with Cuban refugees, attacks by alleged Cuban infiltrators inside the United States, and harassment of U.S. aircraft and shipping and the destruction of aerial drones by aircraft disguised as Cuban MiGs.^[9] These actions would be blamed on Cuba, and would be a pretext for an invasion of Cuba and the overthrow of Fidel Castro's communist government. It was authored by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but then rejected by President John F. Kennedy. The surprise discovery of the documents relating to Operation Northwoods was a result of the comprehensive search for records related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy by the Assassination Records Review Board in the mid-1990's.^[10] Information about Operation Northwoods was later publicized by James Bamford.^{[11]    Source: Wikipedia}

False Flag Terrorism

"False flag terrorism" occurs when elements within a government stage a secret operation whereby government forces pretend to be a targeted enemy while attacking their own forces or people. The attack is then falsely blamed on the enemy in order to justify going to war against that enemy. Or as Wikipedia defines it:

False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one's own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and have been used in peace-time; for example, during Italy's strategy of tension.

The term comes from the old days of wooden ships, when one ship would hang the flag of its enemy before attacking another ship in its own navy. Because the enemy's flag was hung instead of the flag of the real country of the attacking ship, it was called a "false flag" attack. 

There are many examples of false flag attacks throughout history. For example, it is widely known that the Nazis, in Operation Himmler, faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland. And it has now been persuasively argued — as shown, for example, in this History Channel video — that Nazis set fire to their own parliament, the Reichstag, and blamed that fire on others. The Reichstag fire was the watershed event which justified Hitler's seizure of power and suspension of liberties. 

And in the early 1950s, agents of an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind "evidence" implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers). Israel's Defense Minister was brought down by the scandal, along with the entire Israeli government. Click here for verification.

The Russian KGB apparently conducted a wave of bombings in Russia in order to justify war against Chechnya and put Vladimir Putin into power (see also this essay and this report). And the Turkish government has been caught bombing its own and blaming it on a rebel group to justify a crackdown on that group. Muslim governments also play this game. For example, the well-respected former Indonesian president claimed that their government had a role in the Bali bombings.

This sounds nuts, right? You've never heard of this "false flag terrorism," where a government attacks its own people then blames others in order to justify its goals, right? And you are skeptical of the statements discussed above? Please take a look at these historical quotes:

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." - U.S. President James Madison

"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.

What about the U.S.?

Is it logical to assume that, even if other countries have carried out false flag operations (especially horrible regimes such as, say, the Nazis or Stalin), the U.S. has never done so? Well, as documented by the New York Times, Iranians working for the C.I.A. in the 1950's posed as Communists and staged bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected president (see also this essay).

And, as confirmed by a former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence, NATO carried out terror bombings in Italy with the help of the Pentagon and CIA and blamed communists in order to rally people's support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: "You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security."

Moreover, declassified U.S. Government documents show that in the 1960s, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan code-named Operation Northwoods to blow up American airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. The operation was not carried out only because the Kennedy administration refused to implement these Pentagon plans. 

For lots more on the astonishing Operation Northwoods, see the ABC news report; the official declassified documents; and watch this interview with James Bamford, the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC's World News Tonight with Peter Jennings. One quote from the Northwoods documents states: "A 'Remember the Maine' incident could be arranged: We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation." 

read more here False Flag 

-------------------end update--------------------------------------------------------

ORIGINALLY...  
It’s On! US Troops Land In Israel By The Thousands 
The incoming American soldiers are officially categorized as participants in Austere Challenge 12, the biggest joint US-Israeli war game ever held. We told you this was coming in our post a mere 48 hours ago: US To Deploy Troops and Warships In Israel For War With Iran Thousands of US troops began descending on Israel this week. Senior US military sources told debkafile Friday, Jan. 6 that many would be staying up to the end of the year as part of the US-IDF deployment in readiness for a military engagement with Iran and its possible escalation into a regional conflict. They will be joined by a US aircraft carrier.

The warplanes on its decks will fly missions with Israeli Air Force jets. The 9,000 US servicemen gathering in Israel in the coming weeks are mostly airmen, missile interceptor teams, marines, seamen, technicians and intelligence officers.

The maneuver was originally designated Juniper Stallion 2012. However, the altered name plus the comment heard from the exercise’s commander, US Third Air Force Lt. Gen. Frank Gorenc, during his visit two weeks ago, that the coming event is more a “deployment” than an “exercise,” confirmed that Washington has expanded its mission. The joint force will now be in place ready for a decision to attack Iran’s nuclear installations or any war emergency. Our sources disclose that it was decided at the last minute in Washington and Jerusalem to announce the forthcoming Austere Challenge 12 on Thursday night, Jan. 5, ahead of the bulletin released by Tehran about another Iranian naval exercise at the Strait of Hormuz to take place in February, although its 10-day drill in the same arena only ended Monday, Jan. 2.

The early release was decided in consultations among US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and the two army chiefs, US Gen. Martin Dempsey and Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz. British Defense Minister Phillip Hammond, on a visit to Washington, was brought into the discussion. The handout circulated to US correspondents from Hammond’s talks in the US capital affirmed that Britain stands ready to strike Iran if the Strait of Hormuz is closed.

However, that phrase was omitted from the British minister’s remarks at a news conference, following a last-minute request from Panetta, signifying the Obama administration’s interest of keeping a low profile on plans for attacking Iran. Tehran too is walking a taut tightrope. It is staging military’s maneuvers every few days to assuring the Iranian people that its leaders are fully prepared to defend the country against an American or Israeli strike on its national nuclear program.

By this stratagem, Iran’s ground, sea and air forces are maintained constantly at top war readiness to thwart any surprise attack. The joint US-Israeli drill will test multiple Israeli and US air defense systems against incoming missiles and rockets, according to the official communiqué.

READ MORE HERE http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=7824/  



NOW...
Military Drill With the U.S. Is Postponed, Israeli Says 
By ISABEL KERSHNER
Published: January 16, 2012
JERUSALEM — Israel and the United States have agreed to postpone major joint missile-defense exercises that had been scheduled for the spring because of regional tensions and instability, according to Israel’s foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman. The move appears intended to avoid further escalating tensions with Iran, which is under intense international diplomatic and economic pressure to curb its nuclear program out of fears that it is seeking to make a nuclear bomb.

Iran itself recently held 10 days of naval exercises near the Strait of Hormuz, and Israel has kept open the possibility of a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. At the same time, the United States is leading an effort to increase sanctions on Iran, and an Iranian nuclear scientist was assassinated in Tehran, the fourth such attack reported in two years. Iran blames the United States and Israel for the killings.

Speaking Monday on Israel Radio, Mr. Lieberman cited “diplomatic and regional reasons, the tensions and instability” as factors in delaying the exercise. The Israeli military said in a statement that the joint exercise, Austere Challenge 12, would take place during the second half of the year. The exercises, involving thousands of American and Israeli soldiers, were designed to test various Israeli and American air defense systems against missiles and rockets from a range that would include Iran, The Associated Press reported.

The American defense secretary, Leon E. Panetta, said last month that the drill exemplified unprecedented levels of military cooperation between the two countries and that it was meant to back up Washington’s “unshakable” commitment to Israel’s security, The A.P. said. Mark Regev, a spokesman for the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said Israel and the United States made the decision to delay the exercise “because it was not the right time.” He did not elaborate.

Israeli officials have saluted the effectiveness of existing sanctions against Iran while also urging more, specifically on Iran’s Central Bank and its petrochemical sector. In an interview published Saturday in The Weekend Australian, Mr. Netanyahu said he was seeing Iran “wobble” for the first time. “If these sanctions are coupled with a clear statement by the international community, led by the U.S., to act militarily to stop Iran if sanctions fail,” he said, “Iran may consider not going through the pain.”

On Sunday, Moshe Yaalon, a vice prime minister and minister of strategic affairs, described the Obama administration’s failure to add more sanctions as “a disappointment so far.”

READ MORE HERE http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/world/middleeast/major-us-israel-military-exercises-delayed.html

Striking Iran Possible Despite Delay of War Games

An Israeli soldier, dressed as a civilian, bends down while a siren is herd during a military exercise simulating the hit of a non conventional war fare missile in Israel, held in a military base near the southern kibbutz of Zikim on 22 November 2011. (Photo: AFP - David Buimovitch)

By: Max Blumenthal

Published Saturday, January 21, 2012

 
  In a speech before the US Congress last May, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu boasted, "you don’t need to send American troops to Israel. We defend ourselves." Six months later, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Andrew Shapiro announced a record deployment of US troops to Israel to help the country defend itself against a potential missile strike. Called "Austere Challenge 12," the joint drill would have involved thousands of Israeli and American troops in a planned missile defense exercise.

On January 15, days after an assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist that was widely believed to have been the handiwork of the Israeli Mossad, and which Israeli generals offered winking approval for, the joint drills were postponed for several months. The postponement raised important questions that have yet to be answered in a convincing fashion by either side: Who initiated the postponement and why? And does the delay alter possible Israeli plans to attack Iran?

On the day the delay was announced, Laura Rozen, a national security reporter for Yahoo News, published a report citing "American and Israeli officials" claiming that Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak called off the exercises. U.S. European Command (EUCOM) spokesman Captain John Ross offered Rozen a boilerplate statement, declaring that "in general, leaders from both sides believe that optimum participation by all units is best achieved later in the year." Rozen then cited the Jewish Telegraph Agency blogger-reporter Ron Kampeas' claim that "Israeli budget cuts" prompted the postponement.

The Wall Street Journal ran a story a day before that raised strong doubts about the notion that Israel initiated the delay of the joint maneuvers. The Journal reported: U.S. defense leaders are increasingly concerned that Israel is preparing to take military action against Iran, over U.S. objections, and have stepped up contingency planning to safeguard U.S. facilities in the region in case of a conflict.

President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other top officials have delivered a string of private messages to Israeli leaders warning about the dire consequences of a strike. The U.S. wants Israel to give more time for sanctions and other measures intended to force Iran to abandon its perceived efforts to build nuclear weapons to take effect. Stepping up the pressure, Obama spoke by telephone on Thursday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. U.S. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will meet with Israeli military officials in Tel Aviv next week. The Wall Street Journal story clearly rattled the Obama administration, which initiated the Austere Challenge drills to promote its pro-Israel bonafides.

As Assistant Secretary of State Shapiro said when he announced the drills back in November: "I believe that no American administration has done as much as ours for Israel’s security." Now, the White House risked the perception that it had reneged on its promise to Israel and its supporters in the United States. On January 17, a group of senior US defense officials (most likely civilians with political roles in the Pentagon) initiated a call with Jeffrey Goldberg. One official assured Goldberg that "Minister [Ehud] Barak called Secretary [Leon] Panetta and asked if we could take the exercise off the calendar. The Israelis were concerned that they did not have the resources in place to carry it out effectively." The following day, Goldberg published an anodyne statement he received from Israeli Ambassador to the US Michael Oren.

“The exercise between the U.S. Army and the Israel Defense Forces, scheduled to be held this spring, has been postponed to the latter half of the year," Oren declared. "The decision, taken jointly by the European Command (EUCOM) and by the IDF, stemmed solely from technical issues. Such postponements are routine and do not reflect political or strategic concerns. The United States and Israel remain committed to holding the exercise – code-named Austere Challenge 12 – the largest and most robust in their historic alliance.”

Goldberg is a self-appointed enforcer of pro-Israel orthodoxy in Beltway media circles who maintains access to the Obama administration. An unrepentant promoter of the war on Iraq, he recently proclaimed, “I’m all for creating the impression in Iran that Israel or America is preparing to strike.”

READ MORE HERE


WILL IT BE A FALSE FLAG THAT STARTS WW3?