A Closer Look At The Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

Monday, March 14, 2011


The Ramapo Fault is the longest fault in the Northeast that occasionally makes local headlines when minor tremors cause rock the Tri-State region. It begins in Pennsylvania, crosses the Delaware River and continues through Hunterdon, Somerset, Morris, Passaic and Bergen counties before crossing the Hudson River near Indian Point nuclear facility.

In the past, it has generated occasional activity that generated a 2.6 magnitude quake in New Jersey’s Peakpack/Gladstone area and 3.0 magnitude quake in Mendham.

„There is occasional seismic activity in New Jersey,“ said Robinson. „There have been a few quakes locally that have been felt and done a little bit of damage over the time since colonial settlement — some chimneys knocked down in Manhattan with a quake back in the 18th century, but nothing of a significant magnitude.“

Robinson said the Ramapo has on occasion registered a measurable quake but has not caused damage: „The Ramapo fault is associated with geological activities back 200 million years ago, but it’s still a little creaky now and again,“ he said.

„More recently, in the 1970s and early 1980s, earthquake risk along the Ramapo Fault received attention because of its proximity to Indian Point,“ according to the New Jersey Geological Survey website.

Historically, critics of the Indian Point Nuclear facility in Westchester County, New York, did cite its proximity to the Ramapo fault line as a significant risk.

„Subsequent investigations have shown the 1884 Earthquake epicenter was actually located in Brooklyn, New York, at least 25 miles from the Ramapo Fault,“ according to the New Jersey Geological Survey website.

Surviving the First Nuclear War (Revelation 8 )

Project Force: Could the world survive a nuclear winter?

The consequences of a nuclear war would extend far beyond the blast itself, killing millions of people across the globe.

Alex Gatopoulos

Firestorms triggered by burning cities create a huge plume of smoke, soot and ash. The plume rises above the clouds, into the upper atmosphere of the planet, where it will stay, encircling the globe, shielding the Earth from the Sun’s light, cooling the planet.

This is the scenario we could expect following a nuclear clash between nations.

The term nuclear winter was coined in the 1980s as scientists began to realise that the horrors of a nuclear war would not be confined to explosive blasts and radiation.

As climate prediction models become more powerful and sophisticated, scientists have been able to examine more closely what would happen in a nuclear conflict between two antagonists. In the past, most scenarios focused on potentially apocalyptic conflicts between Russia and the United States.

But new models now predict that even a very limited nuclear war would have drastic knock-on effects for global agriculture and dire consequences for life on Earth.

Only two nuclear weapons have ever been used in warfare – when the US bombed the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The two bombs exploded with the combined destructive power of around 37,000 tonnes of high explosive [Al Jazeera]

Anatomy of a nuclear blast

A blast from a modern nuclear weapon would produce a vast amount of energy almost instantly. The effects would be devastating.

First, a blinding flash of light and radiation in the form of heat from the initial explosion would produce temperatures as high as that of the Sun. Wood, plastics, fabrics and flammable liquids would all ignite.

This would almost immediately be followed by the blast wave, moving at several times the speed of sound. A wall of compressed superhot air, the wave would gather up rubble and anything moveable, levelling all buildings within the blast zone and killing everyone in its path for several kilometres.

Within 20 to 30 minutes, a shroud of highly radioactive ash would begin to fall, blanketing both the blast site and the surrounding area, tens of kilometres downwind, and very quickly killing anyone caught outdoors who had somehow managed to survive the initial explosion.

For people outside the blast zone, the situation would also be grim. All electronic equipment would cease to function as the electromagnetic pulse fried every electronic circuit. No phones, internet, computers or cars would work.

Hospitals would be quickly overwhelmed, with the vast majority of the population needing some kind of medical care. Food would disappear as logistical supply trains stopped working. What little there was would be contaminated by the radioactive fallout, along with any water.

In the case of a nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan, for example, it is estimated that between 50 million and 125 million people would die.

What comes afterwards?

Those would be the initial, local effects of a nuclear conflict on a population. But the ensuing nuclear winter would take it to a whole new level.

The vast plumes of dark soot entering the upper atmosphere would spread not just regionally but right around the planet within months. The resulting darkening of the sky would severely affect harvests, even in areas nowhere near the conflict zone.

In one recent simulation, global harvests plummeted between 20 percent and 40 percent for at least a decade. Temperatures dropped dramatically as the climate shifted, triggering widespread drought, a worldwide famine and the death of tens of millions more people.

When Mount Tambora erupted in Indonesia in 1815, the ash it spewed into the atmosphere cooled the Earth by 0.7 degrees centigrade. Even a “limited” nuclear exchange could result in a temperature drop of up to five degrees centigrade [Al Jazeera]

If these scenarios seem far-fetched, consider that the 1815 volcanic eruption of Tambora in Indonesia ruined harvests as far away as the US with 1816 known as the “Year Without Summer” as temperatures dropped sharply around the planet and the resultant failed harvests triggered severe famine across Europe.

The Tambora eruption lowered the global temperature by 0.7 degrees Celsius. The estimated temperature drop from a “limited” nuclear exchange is reckoned to be anywhere between 2 and 5 degrees Celsius.

The Pakistan vs India scenario

The latest studies show that there does not need to be a large-scale nuclear war to have this effect: A possible nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan is the scenario most of these studies have used as their prime example.

Why India and Pakistan? They are traditional enemies, with long-standing and unresolved territorial disputes between them. They are nuclear-armed, and both adhere to military doctrines that could potentially trigger a conflict.

India implements a pro-active or “Cold Start” doctrine for conventional attacks on Pakistan. This involves placing military units as close to the area of operations as possible, coupled with the pre-placing and stockpiling of military materiel such as ammunition, medical supplies, anything that can be used to sustain an advance.

This allows for the swift deployment of armed forces and is designed to deliver a short, sharp, severe shock to the enemy before international diplomatic pressure can halt the conflict.

There is any number of scenarios where these historical foes could or would use nuclear weapons, but a more likely one might begin with a conventional attack by India, whose army is three times the size that of its adversary.

Geographically, Pakistan is a long, thin country that is relatively easy to cut in two using armoured thrusts, most likely through India’s Thar desert in Rajasthan, near Pakistan’s narrowest point.

Finding itself in danger of being overrun, Pakistan could offset its smaller armed forces by blunting any offensive with smaller, tactical nuclear weapons. These are designed to destroy enemy concentrations while inflicting minimal damage on the surrounding area, since it would be likely that Pakistan would be using them on or near its own soil.

It is this combination of India’s shortcut to large-scale military action, combined with Pakistan’s reliance on battlefield nuclear weapons that has the potential for a conflict to rapidly escalate.

A nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan could kill as many as 125 million people, making it one of the deadliest events in human history [Al Jazeera] 

Regardless of how India reacts once struck, the taboo over using these weapons would be broken, and the threshold for further use by both sides would be far lower.

Command-and-control centres, supply nodes and industrial areas would be considered legitimate targets. Most of these – ports, railway junctions, factories, headquarters and seats of government – are located in cities, whose populations would be considered forfeit.

In a conflict that goes nuclear between the two countries, a recent academic paper puts the potential death toll as high as 125 million people. To put that into perspective, the current annual global death rate from all causes is about 56 million people. In such a conflict, these casualties would occur in a matter of days.

As terrible as all that is, the greatest damage to the environment would be from the vast amount of superheated ash and soot that would rise from these destroyed cities, swept up by a nuclear firestorm into the upper atmosphere.

Darkness and starvation

The impact of even such a “limited” nuclear conflict would be devastating for the Earth as a whole. With global dimming, harvests would fail across the planet.

Basic staples would be severely hit as one study shows that China’s wheat production would halve in the first year after a conflict, its rice production dropping by 21 percent.

The US’s corn supply would drop by as much as 20 percent. International supply chains would falter as food became scarce. Hoarding, panic buying and price gouging would become commonplace, leading to further scarcity and marginalising the world’s poor who would struggle to survive the ordeal.

In 2016, the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organisation estimated that 815 million people were food-insecure. They would all be put at far greater risk as food supplies rapidly dwindled in the aftermath of such a conflict.

Another major, cascading effect of even a partial nuclear winter would be the depletion of the ozone layer, allowing crops to be further damaged by unfiltered hard ultraviolet solar radiation.

Ozone would be destroyed by the heating of the upper atmosphere as the darker soot-laden layer of air absorbed more solar energy. The effect would last for more than five years, with 20 percent of the ozone lost across the planet and, in some places, as much as 70 percent, leading to significant destruction of plant, marine and animal life on Earth, and resulting in skin cancers, DNA mutation and eye damage in humans and animals alike.

This, coupled with the violent competition for shrinking resources, likely civil unrest due to mass starvation, rapidly shifting weather patterns and financial collapse, would disrupt all human life with no part of the planet left unscathed.

While the physical effects of a nuclear winter would begin to dissipate after a decade as the sky started to clear, the catastrophic consequences of even a localised nuclear conflict would have far-reaching consequences.

The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are tiny when compared to the weapons in modern nuclear arsenals [Al Jazeera]

This nightmarish scenario is based on just a relatively small nuclear conflict between two minor nuclear powers who together possess 230 nuclear weapons.

By contrast, the US and Russia have a staggering 12,675 nuclear warheads between them.

They are not the only ones; China, France, the United Kingdom, Israel and North Korea also possess these deadly weapons, all able to inflict catastrophic damage on the planet.

The Unattainable Nuclear Deal (Revelation 16)

Unattainable conditions for New START extension?

Wednesday, July 1, 2020

President Donald Trump’s chief arms control envoy last week acknowledged the possibility that the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) could be extended, but he added, “only under select circumstances.” He then put down conditions that, if adhered to, will ensure the Trump administration does not extend the treaty.

New START and Extension

New START limits the United States and Russia each to no more than 800 deployed strategic missiles and bombers and no more than 1,550 deployed strategic warheads.  It expires by its terms on February 5, 2021 but can be extended for up to five years.  The Trump administration has adamantly refused to do that.

From the perspective of U.S. national security interests, extending New START is a no-brainer.  As confirmed by the State Department’s annual report, Russia is complying with the treaty’s limits.  Extension would keep Russian strategic forces constrained until 2026.  It would also ensure the continued flow of information about those forces produced by the treaty’s data exchanges, notifications, on-site inspections and other verification measures.

And extension would not force a single change in U.S. plans to modernize its strategic forces, as those plans were designed to fit within New START’s limits.

Russian officials, including Vladimir Putin, have raised New START extension since the first days of the Trump administration.  In 2017, Trump administration officials deferred on the issue, saying they would consider extension after (1) completion of a nuclear posture review and (2) seeing whether Russia met the treaty’s limits, which took full effect in February 2018.

Russia fully met the limits in February 2018.  At about the same time, the administration issued its nuclear posture review.  Yet, more than two years later, New START extension remains an open question.

On June 24, Amb. Marshall Billingslea, the president arms control envoy, briefed the press on his meeting with his Russian counterpart two days before in Vienna.  Asked about extending New START, Amb. Billingslea—never a fan of the treaty or, it seems, any arms control treaty—left the option open.  However, he described three conditions that will block extension.


Amb. Billingslea’s first condition focused on China, which he claimed had “an obligation to negotiate with [the United States] and Russia.”  Beijing certainly does not see it that way—saying no, no and again no—citing the huge disparity between the size of the Chinese nuclear arsenal and those of the United States and Russia.  China has less than one-tenth the number of nuclear warheads of each of the two nuclear superpowers.

To be sure, including China in the nuclear arms control process is desirable.  But Beijing will not join a negotiation aimed at a trilateral agreement.  What would such an agreement look like?  Neither Washington nor Moscow would agree to reduce to China’s level (about 300 nuclear warheads).  Nothing suggests either would agree to legitimize a Chinese build-up to match their levels (about 4,000 each).  Beijing presumably would not be interested in unequal limits.

This perhaps explains why, well more than one year after it began calling for China’s inclusion, the Trump administration appears to have no proposal or outline or even principles for a trilateral agreement.

For its part, Moscow would welcome China limiting its nuclear arms.  The Russians, however, choose not press the question, raising instead Britain and France.  Amb. Billingslea pooh-poohed the notion, but France has as many nuclear weapons as China, and Britain has two-thirds the Chinese number.  The logic for bringing in one but not the other two is unclear.  The question raises yet another hinderance to including China.

A more nuanced approach might prove more successful.  It would entail a new U.S.-Russian agreement providing for reductions beyond those mandated by New START.  Washington and Moscow could then ask the Chinese (and British and French) to provide transparency on their nuclear weapons numbers and agree not to increase their total weapons or exceed a specified number.  Much like his president, however, the arms control envoy does not appear to be into nuance.

Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons

Amb. Billingslea’s second condition dealt with including in a new negotiation nuclear arms not constrained by New START, especially Russia’s large number of non-strategic nuclear weapons.  Again, this is laudable goal, but getting there will require much time and unpalatable decisions that the Trump administration will not want to face.

Russian officials have regularly tied their readiness to discuss non-strategic nuclear arms to issues of concern to them, particularly missile defense.  The Trump administration,  however, has made clear that it has zero interest in negotiating missile defense.

Even if Moscow severed that linkage, negotiating limits on non-strategic nuclear weapons would take time.  New START limits deployed strategic warheads by virtue of their association with deployed strategic missiles and bombers.  The only warheads directly counted are those on deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-launched ballistic missiles.

By contrast, most if not all non-strategic warheads are not mounted on their delivery systems.  Monitoring any agreed limits would require new procedures, including for conducting on-site inspections within storage facilities.  This does not pose an insoluble challenge, but it represents new territory for both Washington and Moscow.  Working out limits, counting rules and verification measures will prove neither quick nor easy.


Amb. Billingslea earlier suggested some dissatisfaction with New START’s verification measures, though he did not articulate any particular flaw, and, as noted, the State Department’s annual compliance report says Russia is meeting the treaty’s terms.  Last week, he made verification measures for his desired U.S.-Russia-China agreement the third condition for New START extension.

Verification measures are critical.  Treaty parties have to have confidence that all sides are observing the agreement’s limits or, at a minimum, that any militarily significant violation would be detected in time to take countervailing measures.  Working out agreement on those measures will prove a long process, even in just a bilateral negotiation, especially if it addresses issues such as stored nuclear weapons.  That is not just because of Russian reluctance to accept intrusive verification measures such as on-site inspection; the U.S. military also wants verification measures that do not greatly impact its normal operations.

Russian officials have reiterated their readiness to extend New START now.  Amb. Billingslea’s conditions will thwart extension for the foreseeable future.  That’s unfortunate.  By not extending New START, the Trump administration forgoes a simple action that would strengthen U.S. national security and make Americans safer.

Russia’s new super-weapons are leaking radiation

Russia’s new super-weapons might be leaking radiation

Mike Wehner

Radiation levels over northern Europe are rising and nobody knows the source.

• The direction of the radioactive particles indicates Russia may be involved, but the country has denied anything is out of the ordinary.

Nuclear watchdogs have discovered that ships involved with weapons testing were in the area where the radioactive material may have originated.

A few days ago we reported on claims by scientists that radiation levels in northern Europe are rising, and the particles causing the spike are seemingly drifting over from Russia. Russia, via its state-owned news agency, denied that it was responsible, but where there’s smoke there’s fire, and nuclear watchdogs have started to connect the dots between the rising radiation levels and possible testing of new nuclear-powered weapons Russia has already revealed to be in development.

As Forbes reports, the two possible culprits are a new cruise missile known as Burevestnik and a torpedo drone called Poseidon. Both weapons are nuclear powered and can carry nuclear payloads, so any testing or issue with the weapon themselves could be the source of the radioactive particles sweeping in from Russia.

The two new weapons use nuclear energy for propulsion, making them incredibly powerful and allowing them to travel indefinitely. The Burevestnik missile in particular is said to have virtually unlimited range, allowing it to strike anywhere on Earth. However, the Poseidon drone is currently looking like the more likely candidate for being responsible for the radioactive material drift.

Nuclear watchdogs reported that a vessel believed to be involved in Poseidon testing performing some kind of exercise out at sea between June 18th and June 23rd. If the ship was performing retrieval of the weapon after a test launch, that could have easily been the source of the radiation drift.

Remember, Russia has completely denied any involvement in the radiation issue, but the country hasn’t been particularly shy about its new “super weapons.” Those two things don’t seem to match up well, but if one of the new weapon systems had a radiation leak or some other type of failure, we wouldn’t exactly expect Russia to be forthcoming, especially given its sketchy history of being forthcoming with such information.

Unfortunately, this one of those mysteries that may never be solved. Russia isn’t likely to come forward and admit to a failure of a new ultra-powerful weapon, or even suggest that a normal test may have resulted in radioactive material drifting over other nations. It just doesn’t fit Russia’s typical way of doing things, and while the country isn’t involved in any large-scale war, nothing is going to stop them from testing these weapons. For now, we’ll have to wait and see if the skies above Europe clear up a bit, or if radioactive material continues to waft in from the East.

Did Israel or the US just bomb Iran?

Analysts: Fire at Iran nuclear site hit centrifuge facility


Updated: July 2, 2020 – 3:22 PM

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — (AP) — A fire and an explosion struck a centrifuge production plant above Iran’s underground Natanz nuclear enrichment facility early Thursday, analysts said, one of the most-tightly guarded sites in all of the Islamic Republic after earlier acts of sabotage there.

The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran sought to downplay the fire, calling it an “incident” that only affected an under-construction “industrial shed,” spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi said. However, both Kamalvandi and Iranian nuclear chief Ali Akbar Salehi rushed after the fire to Natanz, a facility earlier targeted by the Stuxnet computer virus and built underground to withstand enemy airstrikes.

The fire threatened to rekindle wider tensions across the Middle East, similar to the escalation in January after a U.S. drone strike killing a top Iranian general in Baghdad and Tehran launched a retaliatory ballistic missile attack targeting American forces in Iraq.

While offering no cause for Thursday’s blaze, Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency published a commentary addressing the possibility of sabotage by enemy nations such as Israel and the U.S. following other recent explosions in the country.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran has so far has tried to prevent intensifying crises and the formation of unpredictable conditions and situations,” the commentary said. But ”the crossing of red lines of the Islamic Republic of Iran by hostile countries, especially the Zionist regime and the U.S., means that strategy … should be revised.”

The fire began around 2 a.m. local time in the northwest corner of the Natanz compound in Iran’s central Isfahan province, according to data collected by a U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellite that tracks fires from space.

Images later released by Iranian state media show a two-story brick building with scorch marks and its roof apparently destroyed. Debris on the ground and a door that looked blown off its hinges suggested an explosion accompanied the blaze.

“There are physical and financial damages and we are investigating to assess,” Kamalvandi told Iranian state television. “Furthermore, there has been no interruption in the work of the enrichment site. Thank God, the site is continuing its work as before.”

In Washington, the State Department said that U.S. officials were “monitoring reports of a fire at an Iranian nuclear facility.”

“This incident serves as another reminder of how the Iranian regime continues to prioritize its misguided nuclear program to the detriment of the Iranian people’s needs,” it said.

The site of the fire corresponds to a newly opened centrifuge production facility, said Fabian Hinz, a researcher at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in Monterey, California.

Hinz said he relied on satellite images and a state TV program on the facility to locate the building, which sits in Natanz’s northwest corner.

David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security similarly said the fire struck the production facility. His institute previously wrote a report on the new plant, identifying it from satellite pictures while it was under construction and later built.

Iranian nuclear officials did not respond to a request for comment about the analysts’ comments. However, any damage to the facility would be a major setback, said Hinz, who called the fire “very, very suspicious.”

“It would delay the advancement of the centrifuge technology quite a bit at Natanz,” Hinz said. “Once you have done your research and development, you can’t undo that research and development. Targeting them would be very useful” for Iran’s adversaries.

Natanz, also known as the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant, is among the sites now monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency after Iran’s 2015 nuclear deal with world powers. That deal saw Iran agree to limit its uranium enrichment in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions.

The IAEA said in a statement it was aware of reports of the fire. “We currently anticipate no impact on the IAEA’s safeguards verification activities,” the Vienna-based agency said.

Natanz became a flashpoint for Western fears about Iran’s nuclear program in 2002, when satellite photos showed Iran building an underground facility at the site, some 200 kilometers (125 miles) south of the capital, Tehran. In 2003, the IAEA visited Natanz, which Iran said would house centrifuges for its nuclear program, buried under some 7.6 meters (25 feet) of concrete.

Natanz today hosts the country’s main uranium enrichment facility. In its long underground halls, centrifuges rapidly spin uranium hexafluoride gas to enrich uranium. Currently, the IAEA says Iran enriches uranium to about 4.5% purity — above the terms of the nuclear deal but far below weapons-grade levels of 90%. Workers there also have conducted tests on advanced centrifuges, according to the IAEA.

The U.S. under President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew from the nuclear deal in May 2018, setting up months of tensions between Tehran and Washington. Iran now is breaking all the production limits set by the deal, but still allows IAEA inspectors and cameras to watch its nuclear sites.

Natanz remains of particular concern to Tehran as it has been targeted for sabotage before. The Stuxnet malware, widely believed to be an American and Israeli creation, disrupted and destroyed centrifuges at Natanz amid the height of Western concerns over Iran’s nuclear program.

Satellite photos show an explosion last Friday that rattled Iran’s capital came from an area in its eastern mountains that analysts believe hides an underground tunnel system and missile production sites. Iran has blamed the blast on a gas leak in what it describes a “public area.”

[ Another explosion from a gas leak at a medical clinic in northern Tehran killed 19 people Tuesday. ]

Yoel Guzansky, a senior fellow at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies and former Iran analyst for the prime minister’s office, said he didn’t know if there was an active sabotage campaign targeting Tehran. However, he said the series of explosions in Iran feel like “more than a coincidence.”

“Theoretically speaking, Israel, the U.S. and others have an interest to stop this Iran nuclear clock or at least show Iran there’s a price in going that way,” he said. “If Iran won’t stop, we might see more accidents in Iran.”

Late Thursday, the BBC’s Persian service said it received an email prior to the announcement of the Natanz fire from a group identifying itself as the Cheetahs of the Homeland, claiming responsibility for an attack on the centrifuge production facility at Natanz. This group, which claimed to be dissident members of Iran’s security forces, had never been heard of before by Iran experts and the claim could not be immediately authenticated by the AP.

Associated Press writers Joseph Krauss in Jerusalem and Matthew Lee in Washington contributed to this report.

This photo released Thursday, July 2, 2020, by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, shows a building after it was damaged by a fire, at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility some 200 miles (322 kilometers) south of the capital Tehran, Iran. A fire burned the building above Iran’s underground Natanz nuclear enrichment facility, though officials say it did not affect its centrifuge operation or cause any release of radiation. The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran sought to downplay the fire Thursday, calling it an “incident” that only affected an “industrial shed.” (Atomic Energy Organization of Iran via AP) (Uncredited)

A fire has burned a building above Iran’s underground Natanz nuclear enrichment facility, though officials say it did not affect its centrifuge operation or cause any release of radiation.; (f.duckett)

This photo released Nov. 5, 2019, by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, shows centrifuge machines in the Natanz uranium enrichment facility in central Iran. Behrouz Kamalvandi, a spokesman in a report published Thursday, July 2, 2020 by the state-run IRNA news agency, said an “incident” has damaged an under-construction building near Iran’s Natanz nuclear site, but there was no damage to its centrifuge facility. Kamalvandi said authorities were investigating what happened. (Atomic Energy Organization of Iran via AP, File) (Uncredited)

© 2020 Copyright 2020 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

Hamas Fires Missiles at Sea to Prepare for War Outside the Temple Walls (Revelation 11)

Hamas Fires Missiles at Sea to Prepare for War on Israeli Sovereignty

Hana Levi Julian

9 Tammuz 5780 – July 1, 2020

Photo Credit: Abed Rahim Khatib / Flash 90

Members of the Izz a-Din al-Qassam Brigades military wing of Hamas in Gaza display a Qassam rocket during a military parade on August 21, 2016 in Rafah, southern Gaza.

Gaza’s Iranian-backed Hamas terrorist organization launched a slew of missiles into the Mediterranean Sea overnight Tuesday into Wednesday, Arab media reported.

The barrage of rocket fire was allegedly a warning to the Israeli government as a harbinger of things to come should the Jewish State proceed with its long-held plans to extend sovereignty to her communities in Judea, Samaria and the Jordan Valley.

Wednesday (July 1) was declared by terrorist groups across the Palestinian Authority from Gaza straight through to Ramallah to be a so-called “Day of Rage” against those plans.

“Days of Rage” are declared regularly by mouthpieces for the Palestinian Authority government, Gaza’s ruling Hamas terrorist group, its allied terror organizations in the enclave and various assorted other terrorist gangs in Judea and Samaria.

Such events also typically involve attacks against Israeli civilians on the roads along the seam lines between pre- and post-1967 Israel, and major violence against those who protect the rest of us, IDF soldiers and Border Guard Police officers.

While Hamas was firing its rockets into the sea, however, Israel had already decided not to go ahead with its scheduled plan to extend sovereignty to her communities on July 1, but rather to take a deep breath and a second look.

It’s not yet clear when – or if – the plan will be implemented this summer. Or at all.

Palestinian Factions United Against Annexation Outside the Temple Walls (Revelation 11)

Senior Hamas leader Khalil al-Hayya makes a speech during a protest against Deal of Century in Gaza City, Gaza on January 28, 2020. [Ali Jadallah/Anadolu Agency]

Hamas: All Palestinian factions united against annexation

July 1, 2020 at 9:42 am

The Palestinian Resistance Movement Hamas along with all the other Palestinian factions “are united” against planned Israeli annexation of large parts of the occupied Palestinian West Bank, Hamas spokesman Hazim Qasim said yesterday.

Qasim said that 1 July would be a “day of real rage” to counter the Israeli annexation plan and the US ‘deal of the century’.

He stressed that “Gaza will be part” of any confrontation on the ground, reiterating that resistance “is the best way to fight the Israeli annexation and undermine attempts to partition the country.”

Qasim called for unity among all the Palestinians “not only in the Gaza Strip but also in other parts of the country”, in reference to the occupied West Bank, large areas of which are due to be annexed by Israel.

“The Palestinian Authority’s leadership must take the lead and invite the PLO’s leading bodies in order to get a united stance to face the annexation plan,” Qasim said.

“Unfortunately, we have not heard any positive response from the PA to the Palestinian unity proposals declared by the different Palestinian factions,” Qasim added.