Columbia University Warns Of Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

A study by a group of prominent seismologists suggests that a pattern of subtle but active faults makes the risk of earthquakes to the New York City area substantially greater than formerly believed. Among other things, they say that the controversial Indian Point nuclear power plants, 24 miles north of the city, sit astride the previously unidentified intersection of two active seismic zones. The paper appears in the current issue of the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

Many faults and a few mostly modest quakes have long been known around New York City, but the research casts them in a new light. The scientists say the insight comes from sophisticated analysis of past quakes, plus 34 years of new data on tremors, most of them perceptible only by modern seismic instruments. The evidence charts unseen but potentially powerful structures whose layout and dynamics are only now coming clearer, say the scientists. All are based at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, which runs the network of seismometers that monitors most of the northeastern United States.

Lead author Lynn R. Sykes said the data show that large quakes are infrequent around New York compared to more active areas like California and Japan, but that the risk is high, because of the overwhelming concentration of people and infrastructure. “The research raises the perception both of how common these events are, and, specifically, where they may occur,” he said. “It’s an extremely populated area with very large assets.” Sykes, who has studied the region for four decades, is known for his early role in establishing the global theory of plate tectonics.

The authors compiled a catalog of all 383 known earthquakes from 1677 to 2007 in a 15,000-square-mile area around New York City. Coauthor John Armbruster estimated sizes and locations of dozens of events before 1930 by combing newspaper accounts and other records. The researchers say magnitude 5 quakes—strong enough to cause damage–occurred in 1737, 1783 and 1884. There was little settlement around to be hurt by the first two quakes, whose locations are vague due to a lack of good accounts; but the last, thought to be centered under the seabed somewhere between Brooklyn and Sandy Hook, toppled chimneys across the city and New Jersey, and panicked bathers at Coney Island. Based on this, the researchers say such quakes should be routinely expected, on average, about every 100 years. “Today, with so many more buildings and people, a magnitude 5 centered below the city would be extremely attention-getting,” said Armbruster. “We’d see billions in damage, with some brick buildings falling. People would probably be killed.”

Starting in the early 1970s Lamont began collecting data on quakes from dozens of newly deployed seismometers; these have revealed further potential, including distinct zones where earthquakes concentrate, and where larger ones could come. The Lamont network, now led by coauthor Won-Young Kim, has located hundreds of small events, including a magnitude 3 every few years, which can be felt by people at the surface, but is unlikely to cause damage. These small quakes tend to cluster along a series of small, old faults in harder rocks across the region. Many of the faults were discovered decades ago when subways, water tunnels and other excavations intersected them, but conventional wisdom said they were inactive remnants of continental collisions and rifting hundreds of millions of years ago. The results clearly show that they are active, and quite capable of generating damaging quakes, said Sykes.

One major previously known feature, the Ramapo Seismic Zone, runs from eastern Pennsylvania to the mid-Hudson Valley, passing within a mile or two northwest of Indian Point. The researchers found that this system is not so much a single fracture as a braid of smaller ones, where quakes emanate from a set of still ill-defined faults. East and south of the Ramapo zone—and possibly more significant in terms of hazard–is a set of nearly parallel northwest-southeast faults. These include Manhattan’s 125th Street fault, which seems to have generated two small 1981 quakes, and could have been the source of the big 1737 quake; the Dyckman Street fault, which carried a magnitude 2 in 1989; the Mosholu Parkway fault; and the Dobbs Ferry fault in suburban Westchester, which generated the largest recent shock, a surprising magnitude 4.1, in 1985. Fortunately, it did no damage. Given the pattern, Sykes says the big 1884 quake may have hit on a yet-undetected member of this parallel family further south.

The researchers say that frequent small quakes occur in predictable ratios to larger ones, and so can be used to project a rough time scale for damaging events. Based on the lengths of the faults, the detected tremors, and calculations of how stresses build in the crust, the researchers say that magnitude 6 quakes, or even 7—respectively 10 and 100 times bigger than magnitude 5–are quite possible on the active faults they describe. They calculate that magnitude 6 quakes take place in the area about every 670 years, and sevens, every 3,400 years. The corresponding probabilities of occurrence in any 50-year period would be 7% and 1.5%. After less specific hints of these possibilities appeared in previous research, a 2003 analysis by The New York City Area Consortium for Earthquake Loss Mitigation put the cost of quakes this size in the metro New York area at $39 billion to $197 billion. A separate 2001 analysis for northern New Jersey’s Bergen County estimates that a magnitude 7 would destroy 14,000 buildings and damage 180,000 in that area alone. The researchers point out that no one knows when the last such events occurred, and say no one can predict when they next might come.

“We need to step backward from the simple old model, where you worry about one large, obvious fault, like they do in California,” said coauthor Leonardo Seeber. “The problem here comes from many subtle faults. We now see there is earthquake activity on them. Each one is small, but when you add them up, they are probably more dangerous than we thought. We need to take a very close look.” Seeber says that because the faults are mostly invisible at the surface and move infrequently, a big quake could easily hit one not yet identified. “The probability is not zero, and the damage could be great,” he said. “It could be like something out of a Greek myth.”

The researchers found concrete evidence for one significant previously unknown structure: an active seismic zone running at least 25 miles from Stamford, Conn., to the Hudson Valley town of Peekskill, N.Y., where it passes less than a mile north of the Indian Point nuclear power plant. The Stamford-Peekskill line stands out sharply on the researchers’ earthquake map, with small events clustered along its length, and to its immediate southwest. Just to the north, there are no quakes, indicating that it represents some kind of underground boundary. It is parallel to the other faults beginning at 125th Street, so the researchers believe it is a fault in the same family. Like the others, they say it is probably capable of producing at least a magnitude 6 quake. Furthermore, a mile or so on, it intersects the Ramapo seismic zone.

Sykes said the existence of the Stamford-Peekskill line had been suggested before, because the Hudson takes a sudden unexplained bend just ot the north of Indian Point, and definite traces of an old fault can be along the north side of the bend. The seismic evidence confirms it, he said. “Indian Point is situated at the intersection of the two most striking linear features marking the seismicity and also in the midst of a large population that is at risk in case of an accident,” says the paper. “This is clearly one of the least favorable sites in our study area from an earthquake hazard and risk perspective.”

The findings comes at a time when Entergy, the owner of Indian Point, is trying to relicense the two operating plants for an additional 20 years—a move being fought by surrounding communities and the New York State Attorney General. Last fall the attorney general, alerted to the then-unpublished Lamont data, told a Nuclear Regulatory Commission panel in a filing: “New data developed in the last 20 years disclose a substantially higher likelihood of significant earthquake activity in the vicinity of [Indian Point] that could exceed the earthquake design for the facility.” The state alleges that Entergy has not presented new data on earthquakes past 1979. However, in a little-noticed decision this July 31, the panel rejected the argument on procedural grounds. A source at the attorney general’s office said the state is considering its options.

The characteristics of New York’s geology and human footprint may increase the problem. Unlike in California, many New York quakes occur near the surface—in the upper mile or so—and they occur not in the broken-up, more malleable formations common where quakes are frequent, but rather in the extremely hard, rigid rocks underlying Manhattan and much of the lower Hudson Valley. Such rocks can build large stresses, then suddenly and efficiently transmit energy over long distances. “It’s like putting a hard rock in a vise,” said Seeber. “Nothing happens for a while. Then it goes with a bang.” Earthquake-resistant building codes were not introduced to New York City until 1995, and are not in effect at all in many other communities. Sinuous skyscrapers and bridges might get by with minimal damage, said Sykes, but many older, unreinforced three- to six-story brick buildings could crumble.

Art Lerner-Lam, associate director of Lamont for seismology, geology and tectonophysics, pointed out that the region’s major highways including the New York State Thruway, commuter and long-distance rail lines, and the main gas, oil and power transmission lines all cross the parallel active faults, making them particularly vulnerable to being cut. Lerner-Lam, who was not involved in the research, said that the identification of the seismic line near Indian Point “is a major substantiation of a feature that bears on the long-term earthquake risk of the northeastern United States.” He called for policymakers to develop more information on the region’s vulnerability, to take a closer look at land use and development, and to make investments to strengthen critical infrastructure.

“This is a landmark study in many ways,” said Lerner-Lam. “It gives us the best possible evidence that we have an earthquake hazard here that should be a factor in any planning decision. It crystallizes the argument that this hazard is not random. There is a structure to the location and timing of the earthquakes. This enables us to contemplate risk in an entirely different way. And since we are able to do that, we should be required to do that.”

New York Earthquake Briefs and Quotes:

Existing U.S. Geological Survey seismic hazard maps show New York City as facing more hazard than many other eastern U.S. areas. Three areas are somewhat more active—northernmost New York State, New Hampshire and South Carolina—but they have much lower populations and fewer structures. The wider forces at work include pressure exerted from continuing expansion of the mid-Atlantic Ridge thousands of miles to the east; slow westward migration of the North American continent; and the area’s intricate labyrinth of old faults, sutures and zones of weakness caused by past collisions and rifting.

Due to New York’s past history, population density and fragile, interdependent infrastructure, a 2001 analysis by the Federal Emergency Management Agency ranks it the 11th most at-risk U.S. city for earthquake damage. Among those ahead: Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle and Portland. Behind: Salt Lake City, Sacramento, Anchorage.

New York’s first seismic station was set up at Fordham University in the 1920s. Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, in Palisades, N.Y., has operated stations since 1949, and now coordinates a network of about 40.

Dozens of small quakes have been felt in the New York area. A Jan. 17, 2001 magnitude 2.4, centered in the Upper East Side—the first ever detected in Manhattan itself–may have originated on the 125th Street fault. Some people thought it was an explosion, but no one was harmed.

The most recent felt quake, a magnitude 2.1 on July 28, 2008, was centered near Milford, N.J. Houses shook and a woman at St. Edward’s Church said she felt the building rise up under her feet—but no damage was done.

Questions about the seismic safety of the Indian Point nuclear power plant, which lies amid a metropolitan area of more than 20 million people, were raised in previous scientific papers in 1978 and 1985.

Because the hard rocks under much of New York can build up a lot strain before breaking, researchers believe that modest faults as short as 1 to 10 kilometers can cause magnitude 5 or 6 quakes.

In general, magnitude 3 quakes occur about 10 times more often than magnitude fours; 100 times more than magnitude fives; and so on. This principle is called the Gutenberg-Richter relationship.

The Hypocrisy Outside the Temple Walls (Revelation 11)

Banksy takes politically charged Nativity scene to Bethlehem

By MOHAMMED DARAGHMEH, Associated Press

Posted 7 hours, 42 minutes ago

BETHLEHEM, West Bank (AP) — The mysterious street artist known as Banksy has displayed a politically charged Nativity scene in Bethlehem, the town revered as Jesus’ birthplace, just in time for the busy Christmas season.

The artwork, named “Scar of Bethlehem,” depicts the birth of Jesus under Israel’s West Bank separation barrier with a bullet hole shaped like a star. The piece is displayed at the “Walled Off Hotel,” a Palestinian guesthouse in Bethlehem that was designed by Banksy and is filled with his artwork.

Wisam Salsaa, the hotel manager, said the British artist recently sent the new piece to the hotel.

“We see there is a scar,” he said. “A hole on the wall marks the wall and the life in Bethlehem.”

The hotel, which overlooks the separation barrier, sarcastically boasts “the worst view in the world.” Since its opening in 2017, it has become a popular tourist draw.

“Banksy is trying to remind the world that people of Bethlehem, where Christmas was started, are not celebrating Christmas like the rest of the world,” he said.

Israel built the barrier in the early 2000s in what it said was a move to prevent Palestinian suicide bombers in the West Bank from reaching Israel. The Palestinians consider the barrier illegal and call it an Israeli land grab, noting that it has engulfed large chunks of the West Bank onto the Israeli “side.”

Bethlehem has been affected especially hard by the barrier, which surrounds large parts of the city.

Tourists flocked to the hotel Sunday to see the Nativity scene and other works by Banksy as part of their visit to the city during the peak Christmas season.

Rafael Edelmuller, a 37-year-old tourist from London, said he was looking forward to seeing the art after seeing most of Banksy’s work in Amsterdam and London.

“So we saw the Church of Nativity and then the second thing that we wanted to see was the wall with the Banksy hotel and the artwork,” Edelmuller said.

The British street artist, who carefully protects his anonymity, is believed to have made several past appearances in the Palestinian territories.

In one work, a mural of a girl pulled upward by balloons was painted on the separation barrier facing the hotel. Banksy also is believed to have sneaked into the Gaza Strip to draw four murals there. One was painted on a remaining piece of a building destroyed during the 2014 war between Israel and Gaza’s ruling Hamas militant group and featured the Greek goddess Niobe cowering against the rubble of a destroyed house.

___

Associated Press writer Imad Isseid in Bethlehem, West Bank, contributed to this report.

The South Korean Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7)

Revealed: We Now Know Why America Sent Nuclear Weapons To South Korea

Key point: America had nuclear weapons in South Korea until 1991.

The day was January 17, 1957, and Assistant Secretary of State Walter Robertson had a nagging worry that his boss, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, wouldn’t go toe-to-toe with the Pentagon on the subject of introducing nuclear weapons into South Korea. The State Department, Robertson wrote in a memo to Dulles, remained unequivocally opposed to deploying atomic weapons on the Korean Peninsula. “In my opinion the introduction of atomic weapons into Korea, whether accompanied by nuclear components or not, in this time of world tension would have serious adverse repercussions throughout the Far East…,” Robertson opined. The military benefit was simply not worth the political costs.

The next day, Secretary Dulles met with Defense Secretary Charles Wilson and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Arthur Radford and delivered some of those same points. Dulles, no Cold War peacenik, told his colleagues that it would be very difficult to convince Washington’s allies that sending U.S. nuclear weapons into the South was an appropriate response to perceived North Korean violations of the Armistice Agreement. The Joint Chiefs didn’t buy the argument: Pyongyang, Radford claimed, was throwing the military balance off-kilter. The only way the United States could mitigate the situation was by flying in strategic weapons on the other side of the Armistice line.

Both of these documents, newly declassified, is only a portion of the new cache released by the National Security Archive on November 20 detailing the fierce inter-agency debate about whether stationing U.S. nuclear arms in South Korea was an appropriate U.S. policy. The memos and meeting records depict a fairly consistent picture of the military brass and senior Pentagon leadership pushing for the deployment, the State Department pushing back, and President Dwight Eisenhower playing the marriage counselor between the two urging for more debate before a final decision was made one way or the other.  Ultimately, Washington would indeed station nuclear arms in the South. But according to the newly released correspondence, the State Department was never convinced that the deployment was necessary or appropriate.

Senior State Department officials, up to and including Secretary Dulles, were focused on the big picture throughout the Eisenhower administration’s debate: how would the introduction of nukes into South Korea be interpreted by the Communists; would Washington appear as if it blatantly violated the Armistice Agreement and escalated the situation; and would U.S. allies in Europe and Asia support sending the world’s most powerful weapons to one of the world’s most dangerous Cold War flashpoint? Assistant Secretary Robertson, writing again to Secretary Dulles, was extremely troubled about how the international community would react and recommended that he explain to the Pentagon “the dangerous consequences to our position with our Allies, in the United Nations, and before the world, were we to lay ourselves open to the charge of having violated the Korean Armistice and having greatly introduced tensions in the Far East…”

Nearly two months later, Robert R. Bowie, the Director of the Policy Planning Staff at the State Department, penned a memo outlining his strong beliefs about the negative consequences of a nuclear deployment. “Even on the proposed rationale—to redress the military balance—there has been no showing that Communist strength in North Korea has been increased to an extent requiring us to station nuclear weapons in Korea,” Bowie wrote. It was the same line of argument Dulles used himself during an April 4, 1957 National Security Council meeting with President Eisenhower in attendance: “Secretary Dulles…asked the question whether it was really worthwhile to be regarded by our friends and allies as violators of a solemn international agreement simply in order to get these two particular weapons in the hands of our forces in Korea.”

Dulles’ concerns were partly correct. Australia and New Zealand, for instance, expressed worry during conversations with U.S. representatives that Seoul would be permitted to operate dual-use weapons under their own command. The French “would want to be assured that U.S. not going beyond Communist actions as to character items to be introduced,” the U.S. Embassy reported back to Washington. If the United States was indeed going to put nukes in South Korea, Washington’s allies and partners needed to be wined and dined.

We all know how this story ended.  The South would host U.S.-controlled nuclear arms for decades until President George H.W. Bush unilaterally pulled them out in 1991. It has been U.S. policy ever since to achieve a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula, an objective that may very well have left the barn the moment the Kim regime conducted its first underground nuclear test more than 13 years ago.

The deliberations within the U.S. national security bureaucracy leading up to Eisenhower’s final call, however, was far more spirited than previously understood. The State Department may have lost the battle to the Pentagon, but not without a fight.

Daniel DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities, a foreign policy organization focused on promoting a realistic grand strategy to ensure American security and prosperity. This article first appeared last month.

Image: Reuters.

Japan Tries Hopelessly to Thwart Collapse of Iran Nuclear Deal

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe greeted Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in Tokyo on Friday.PHOTO: POOL/REUTERS

Japan Tries to Thwart Collapse of Iran Nuclear Deal

Shinzo Abe urges visiting Iranian president to abide by 2015 agreement

By Chieko Tsuneoka

Updated Dec. 20, 2019 10:44 am ET

TOKYO—Japan urged Iran to adhere to a 2015 nuclear deal as their leaders met on Friday, but Iran’s president said Washington was at fault for Mideast tensions because it pulled out of the multinational accord.

President Hassan Rouhani, the first Iranian leader to visit Japan since 2000, met Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who has sought to serve as a mediator between the U.S. and Iran, a longtime friend and oil supplier to Tokyo.

In three hours of talks including a dinner, Mr. Abe expressed grave concerns over Iran’s moves toward breaching the 2015 agreement, which limited Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for economic incentives, according to a Japanese official. Mr. Abe called on Tehran to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

“Japan hopes to play a role as much as possible for easing tensions in the Middle East region and stabilizing the regional situation,” Mr. Abe said at the beginning of the meeting in front of reporters.

Mr. Rouhani showed no public sign of budging. Speaking through an interpreter, he said he strongly denounced the U.S.’s “unilateral and irrational withdrawal” from the 2015 deal.

Iran has gradually disengaged from the nuclear deal as a way to pressure European countries to provide promised relief from U.S. sanctions. Its steps so far have been largely inconsequential for its potential path to a nuclear weapon and haven’t significantly cut the time it would need to enrich weapons-grade uranium.

But Iranian officials acknowledge that they are running out of options for step-by-step escalation at a low risk, according to Western diplomats. European powers have warned that any further steps by Iran away from the nuclear deal would force them to trigger a dispute mechanism which could ultimately kill off the agreement.

Iran has said it would remain in compliance with the agreement if U.S. sanctions are lifted and European countries make a special payment channel with Iran operational. Iranian officials have repeatedly said the country is willing to meet with the Trump administration, but only if sanctions are lifted.

Amid escalating tensions in the Persian Gulf, some world leaders are urging the U.S. and Iran to begin talks on a possible new nuclear deal. But neither side seems willing to make the first move. Photo: Stefan Rousseau/Zuma Press

As the sanctions have exacerbated Iran’s economic crisis, Tehran has pushed back against the U.S. with asymmetric tactics. It downed a U.S. drone over the Persian Gulf, impounded a British oil tanker and, according to the U.S., sabotaged tankers off its southern coast and attacked Saudi oil facilities. Iran denies the U.S. accusations.

Mr. Abe’s visit to Tehran in June, another mediation attempt, was marred by an attack on a Japanese ship in the Gulf of Oman that the U.S. blamed on Iran. Tehran said it wasn’t responsible. That was the first visit to Iran by a Japanese leader since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

The U.S. has put together a naval coalition to safeguard navigation in the region and has urged Japan to contribute to the effort.

Mr. Abe described to the Iranian leader Tokyo’s plan to send the Japanese military to waters near Iran for information-gathering to secure shipping safety, according to the Japanese official. The effort would be independent of the U.S.-led coalition.

Mr. Abe sought Mr. Rouhani’s understanding for the Japanese mission, and Mr. Rouhani effectively gave his nod, the Japanese official said.

Japan was a major buyer of Iranian crude oil until this year, but it stopped purchases to comply with U.S. sanctions, the Japanese government said.

“I welcome any effort that could boost economic exchanges, especially in the energy sector, and increase oil exports,” Mr. Rouhani said in a tweet following the meeting with Mr. Abe. “Other parties must also keep up to their commitments,” he said.

—Sune Rasmussen in Beirut contributed to this article.

Write to Chieko Tsuneoka at chieko.Tsuneoka@dowjones.com

Babylon the Great Expands Her Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7)

The Air Force’s Global Strike Command Is Preparing For A Delivery Of New Nuclear Weapons

Key point: The command is in the beginning of a modernization effort costing tens of billions of dollars.

The U.S. Air Force’s nuclear command says it’s about to undergo a major reorganization as it prepares to field new bombs, missiles, bombers and rockets.

Air Force Global Strike Command stood up in 2009 as the successor to Strategic Air Command, which maintained around-the-clock nuclear alerts during the Cold War.

Today the command’s 34,000 personnel oversee 20 B-2 stealth bombers, 76 B-52 bombers and 450 Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles together capable of delivering thousands of nuclear warheads.

It also operates 62 B-1 bombers that do not have a nuclear mission.

AFGSC’s forces comprise the aerial and ground “legs” of the United States’s atomic triad, which also includes the U.S. Navy’s submarine-launched Trident ballistic missiles.

The command’s forces are capable of extinguishing essentially all life on Earth within a matter of hours.

Accidents and misbehavior marred AFGSC’s early years. In 2014 ICBM crews got caught cheating on tests. In 2018 security forces at Minot Air Force Base, home to a portion of the Minuteman fleet, lost track of some of their weapons. The suicide rate is high in the atomic force.

Now the command is in the beginning of a modernization effort costing tens of billions of dollars. New B-21 stealth bombers are slated to supplant the B-1s and B-2s starting in the mid-2020s. The Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent rocket, a replacement for the 1960s-vintage Minuteman, is in development.

The new Long-Range Stand-Off Weapon, a nuclear-tipped cruise missile, will replace the B-52’s current nuclear cruise missiles. The bomber fleet is getting a refurbished model of its main atomic gravity bomb, the B-61. The missile wings’ security forces are swapping out their five-decade-old UH-1 helicopters for new MH-139s.

AFGSC wants new concepts to accompany the new hardware. “The need for a clear way ahead is more prevalent now than ever with the rising tensions between Russia, China, North Korea, Iran and transnational violent extremism, and the increase in our adversaries’ nuclear capabilities and innovations,” AFGSC stated.

Some reforms already are underway, according to Air Force Magazine reporter Rachel Cohen.

“The Air Force is beefing up its nuclear education and leadership development, charting missileer career paths for reservists and trying to be mindful of operations stress, the need for a sense of purpose and other health concerns. As the service tries to cut its suicide rate, Ray noted his command can draw on the knowledge of a nearby Department of Veterans Affairs hospital in Louisiana.”

Looking ahead, the command is focusing on the bigger picture. “Among the roadmap’s nine overall goals is an effort to grow the services Global Strike can offer U.S. Strategic Command, which oversees daily operations of nuclear forces, as its air component,” Cohen explained.

Global Strike and STRATCOM practiced what that might look like during Exercise Global Thunder earlier this fall [2019], trying approaches that “have not been done since the Cold War ended” and—in some cases—offer more capability than the military had at that time, Ray said.

Global Thunder is an annual exercise where the U.S. and allied nations like Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom train for conflict scenarios involving nuclear forces.

“We don’t have sanctuary in the United States based on lots of different threats,” Ray said. “We start thinking about hypersonics, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, submarines, space and cyber, all those things will be a dimension of this. How do we operate with those particular challenges working against us? That’s probably been more relevant than we’ve done in a very long time.”

He added that the exercise incorporated newer aspects like space, cyber and electronic warfare “probably more correctly,” but said the details are classified.

AFGSC’s modernization efforts could take decades. The new Ground Based Strategic Deterrent won’t even begin to enter service until the late 2020s, at the earliest. B-21s could be in production through the 2030s.

But Ray is in a hurry to refine the command’s operational concepts. “I want to have the operational concepts and how we present the forces redone in the next six to nine months,” he told Air Force.

David Axe serves as Defense Editor of the National Interest. He is the author of the graphic novels  War Fix, War Is Boring and Machete Squad.

Image: Reuters.

Great March Continues Outside the Temple Walls (Revelation 11)

A Palestinian disabled man throws a stone with a slingshot towards Israeli forces during “Great March of Return” demonstration at Israel-Gaza border, near Shuja’iyya neighborhood of Gaza City, Gaza on September 6, 2019 [Mustafa Hassona / Anadolu Agency]

Hamas: Great March of Return to continue in several forms

December 21, 2019 at 12:03 pm

The Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, announced on Friday that the Great March of Return will continue in several forms, stressing that the Palestinian factions have been working to develop it.

In a press release sent to mass media, Hamas spokesman, Abdel-Latif Al-Qanoon, hailed the mass turn out of the protesters on the 85th Friday of the protests of the Great March of Return.

He stressed that the protests would continue to oppose the Israeli occupation and defend the legitimate rights of the Palestinians.

The battle with the Israeli occupation continues and the Great March of Return is one of the forms of this battle,” Al-Qanoon affirmed, noting that the Palestinian factions have been developing the protests, as well as working to establish others forms of resistance.

The 85th protest was code-named “the Friday of Al-Khalil against Judaisation.” The Palestinian Human Rights Council reported 45 protesters wounded during the demonstration.

Mashal: Our people reject economic peace under occupation, Israel will not defeat Gaza

Palestinian Protesters Clash Outside the Temple Walls (Revelation 11)

Palestinian protesters clash with Israeli troops on Gaza-Israel border

Source: Xinhua| 2019-12-21 07:21:20|Editor: xuxin

Palestinian protesters clash with Israeli troops on the Gaza-Israel border, east of southern Gaza Strip city of Khan Younis, Dec. 20, 2019. (Photo by Yasser Qudih/Xinhua)

Palestinians run to take cover from tear gas canisters fired by Israeli soldiers during clashes on the Gaza-Israel border, east of southern Gaza Strip city of Khan Younis, Dec. 20, 2019. (Photo by Yasser Qudih/Xinhua)