East Coast Quakes and the Sixth Seal: Revelation 6

Items lie on the floor of a grocery store after an earthquake on Sunday, August 9, 2020 in North Carolina.

East Coast Quakes: What to Know About the Tremors Below

By Meteorologist Dominic Ramunni Nationwide PUBLISHED 7:13 PM ET Aug. 11, 2020 PUBLISHED 7:13 PM EDT Aug. 11, 2020

People across the Carolinas and Mid-Atlantic were shaken, literally, on a Sunday morning as a magnitude 5.1 earthquake struck in North Carolina on August 9, 2020.

Centered in Sparta, NC, the tremor knocked groceries off shelves and left many wondering just when the next big one could strike.

Fault Lines

Compared to the West Coast, there are far fewer fault lines in the East. This is why earthquakes in the East are relatively uncommon and weaker in magnitude.

That said, earthquakes still occur in the East.

According to Spectrum News Meteorologist Matthew East, “Earthquakes have occurred in every eastern U.S. state, and a majority of states have recorded damaging earthquakes. However, they are pretty rare. For instance, the Sparta earthquake Sunday was the strongest in North Carolina in over 100 years.”

While nowhere near to the extent of the West Coast, damaging earthquakes can and do affect much of the eastern half of the country.

For example, across the Tennesse River Valley lies the New Madrid Fault Line. While much smaller in size than those found farther west, the fault has managed to produce several earthquakes over magnitude 7.0 in the last couple hundred years.

In 1886, an estimated magnitude 7.0 struck Charleston, South Carolina along a previously unknown seismic zone. Nearly the entire town had to be rebuilt.


The eastern half of the U.S. has its own set of vulnerabilities from earthquakes.

Seismic waves actually travel farther in the East as opposed to the West Coast. This is because the rocks that make up the East are tens, if not hundreds, of millions of years older than in the West.

These older rocks have had much more time to bond together with other rocks under the tremendous pressure of Earth’s crust. This allows seismic energy to transfer between rocks more efficiently during an earthquake, causing the shaking to be felt much further.

This is why, during the latest quake in North Carolina, impacts were felt not just across the state, but reports of shaking came as far as Atlanta, Georgia, nearly 300 miles away.

Reports of shaking from different earthquakes of similar magnitude.

Quakes in the East can also be more damaging to infrastructure than in the West. This is generally due to the older buildings found east. Architects in the early-to-mid 1900s simply were not accounting for earthquakes in their designs for cities along the East Coast.

When a magnitude 5.8 earthquake struck Virginia in 2011, not only were numerous historical monuments in Washington, D.C. damaged, shaking was reported up and down the East Coast with tremors even reported in Canada.


There is no way to accurately predict when or where an earthquake may strike.

Some quakes will have a smaller earthquake precede the primary one. This is called a foreshock.

The problem is though, it’s difficult to say whether the foreshock is in fact a foreshock and not the primary earthquake. Only time will tell the difference.

The United State Geological Survey (USGS) is experimenting with early warning detection systems in the West Coast.

While this system cannot predict earthquakes before they occur, they can provide warning up to tens of seconds in advance that shaking is imminent. This could provide just enough time to find a secure location before the tremors begin.

Much like hurricanes, tornadoes, or snowstorms, earthquakes are a natural occuring phenomenon that we can prepare for.

The USGS provides an abundance of resources on how to best stay safe when the earth starts to quake.

The Risk of Nuking Up Australia: Daniel 7

 Australia warned bid for nuclear submarines carries 'enormous' risks

Australia warned bid for nuclear submarines carries ‘enormous’ risks

Andrew Beatty (AFP) 

Sydney, Australia   ●   Wed, December 15, 2021

Australia’s bid to develop a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines will cost more than US$80 billion and take decades in the “most complex” project the country has ever embarked on, a study released Monday warned.

The report from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute — an influential Canberra-based think tank — said ownership of the high-tech subs built with US or British know-how would offer a major advantage in deterring aggression from China or elsewhere.

But it will also be a fiendishly difficult task requiring a step-change in Australia’s military and industrial capabilities.

It is “probably the largest and most complex endeavour Australia has embarked upon. The challenges, costs and risks will be enormous,” the think tank warned.

“It’s likely to be at least two decades and tens of billions of dollars in sunk costs before Australia has a useful nuclear-powered military capability.”

The project, announced last month, will make Australia the only non-nuclear weapons power to own nuclear-run submarines, which are capable of travelling quickly over long distances carrying long-range missiles and state-of-the-art underwater drones.

Canberra plans to equip them with conventional rather than nuclear weapons. It has yet to decide whether it will buy US or British technology, what class, size and capabilities the subs will have, where they will be built or how radioactive material will be handled.

Even under an optimistic schedule, the first submarines are unlikely to be operational before 2040, according to the report’s authors, who include former Australian defence department officials and an expert on nuclear physics.

The price tag will be eyewatering, with an eight-boat program costing Aus$116 billion (US$83 billion) “at an absolute minimum”, almost a tenth of annual gross domestic product.

Among a litany of tasks ahead, the navy will have to triple the number of submariners it recruits, refurbish docks, and develop extensive nuclear safeguards.

On the diplomatic front, Australia will need to reassure neighbours and the International Atomic Energy Agency that the subs do not present a nuclear proliferation risk.

“Regardless of the Australian government’s declared intentions,” the report said, “once Australia possesses (weapons-grade enriched uranium), the breakout time to develop and construct nuclear weapons would be less than a year if a simple nuclear-weapon design were pursued.”

The submarine plan has already caused diplomatic headaches for Canberra, with nearest neighbour Indonesia expressing concern, and the decision to ditch a contract to buy French non-nuclear submarines causing fury in Paris.

The Implications of the Pakistani Nuclear Horn:Daniel 8

Location of Pakistan and Pakistani Rupee coin.

Pakistan: An Insolvent Nuclear Weapons Power And Implications – Analysis

December 1, 2021

Location of Pakistan and Pakistani Rupee coin.

Pakistan at the end of 2021 stands out significantly as an ‘Insolvent” nuclear weapons power whose external debt hovering at about $170 billion outstripping its GDP creates national security issues as admitted by Pakistan’s incumbent PM Imran Khan recently. Significantly, Pakistan’s insolvency as a Nuclear Weapons power generates regional and global security implications.

Putting aside economic statistics on Pakistan’s ‘“Insolvency”, what needs to be focussed on is to what are the major causes of the country’s financial bankruptcy besides its low income tax revenues, rampant political corruption and reluctance to impose hard-nosed economic reforms as demanded by international monetary institutions like IMF.

Meriting highlighting initially itself is the overall context that has led Pakistan into such a poor economic state. Pakistan as a ‘Rentier State’ stood used over decades to trade-off its strategic utility earlier to United States ad since last couple of years to China which now has Pakistan in a colonial economic stranglehold of debt-traps via the CPEC inducements.

Besides the United States and China, one also needs to blame Saudi Arabia in a big way for Pakistan’s insolvency. Saudi Arabia not for reasons of Islamic munificence but more as presumed in strategic circles has been generous to Pakistan with providing finances to Pakistan in billions of dollars in exchange for Pakistan assisting Saudi Arabia with Nuclear Weapons technology and blueprints. As late as last week Saudi Arabia has provided billions of dollars to bail out Pakistan from its financial mess with IMF refusing further loans.

Moving on to the major reasons for Pakistan’s insolvency, two major reasons stand out significantly. Pakistan Army’s exorbitant defence expenditures and particularly on Pakistan Army’s Nuclear Weapons and Ballistic Missiles arsenal unrelated to South Asian threat scenarios but more fostered by Pakistan Army’s grandiose designs of strategic equivalence with India, is the first major reason of Pakistan’s insolvency.

China foisting the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) on a financially weak Pakistan thriving on external financing/loans/debts amounted to Chinese “Economic Drugging” of impoverished nuclear weaponised Pakistan. Pakistan as an ‘Economic Druggist’ traded its national and economic security for China’s CPEC economic allurements unmindful that China was laying a “Debt Trap” for Pakistan to wade into which was to be traded by China for strategic stranglehold over Pakistan.

Needless to highlight is that China stands out in both the major reasons of Pakistan’s insolvency pointed out above by me. 

In terms of Pakistan’s insolvency emerging as a major National Security issue as asserted by PM Imran Khan last week, the detailed reasons were not spelt out by Pakistan PM. Was he referring to economic unrest that could plague Pakistan with high rates of inflation and falling rates of the Pakistan Rupee? Or was the Pakistan PM referring to enough financial resources being available for expenditures of Pakistan Army’s increasing outlays and its consistently increasing Nuclear Weapons arsenal?

In terms of objective analysis, both the above reasons need to be taken into account as impacting Pakistan’s National Security. Domestic political discontent within Pakistan could intensify impacting good political governance and control. This could result in Pakistan once again headed to a ‘Failed State’ designation which this time the United States would not bail-out financially with Pakistan now fully aligned with China.

China flinched two years back from an economic bailout of Pakistan when PM Imran Khan confident of China’s financial support boldly declared that Pakistan would not go to IMF for financial bailouts. In 2021, China fully conscious of Pakistan’s current insolvency and mounting CPEC debt-repayments failing would not step-in without Pakistan  off-setting and conceding strategic gains and foothold to China.

Taking a cue from China’s record in case of Sri Lanka and Africa in similar situations, China would definitely demand outright control of Pakistan’s strategic Port of Gwadur. In other words, Gwadur could emerge as major Chinese Navy Base linked to China by CPEC road and rail links,

Associated with the above would be China pressurising Pakistan and its Taliban Government protégé in Kabul to lease US-abandoned major Bagram Air Base to China—–both Gwadur and Bagram—taken together, seriously generating grave strategic implications both regionally and globally.

Major strategic implications would be generated for India and Iran. India would have already taken this into account and catering for it. Iran would have to now think twice about the security implications of the nebulous 25 Year China-Iran Strategic Partnership Agreement. Iran has not been a rentier state like Pakistan and it would be interesting as to how Iran deals with such an emerging threat to Iranian National Security .

In terms of global implications, both the United States and Russia too would have to seriously take into account the possibilities of Pakistan as an ‘Insolvent Nuclear Weapons State’ emerging as an ‘Economic and Strategic Vassal’ of China as a ‘Revisionist State’ challenging the established World Order.

Pointed out in my writings for decades now is that while the international community had accepted a US-Russia Dyad in the past, the international community is in no mood to accept a US-China Dyad in the future. This was most vividly demonstrated when a former US President some years back had mooted such a precept. Indo Pacific capitals shot down the precept.

In terms of Indo Pacific security the complete take-over of Pakistan as a colonial entity by China including its nuclear weapons arsenal creates serious implications. This would set in motion its own strategic dynamics which could extend to defanging Pakistan’s nuclear weapons arsenal before China obtains complete control of it.

The last question that needs to be addressed is whether Pakistan can get out of its insolvency with China’s financial assistance. The answer is in the negative going by China’s demonstrated record in China-Pakistan relationship ever since 1962. China’s interest in Pakistan is mercenary and colonial. China has no liberal inclinations of building up Pakistan into a stable self-reliant and stable State.

Concluding, it needs to be emphasised that in view of the foregoing analysis, the United States should not once again stumble into propping up a virtual ‘Failed State’ morphed by China into a ‘Rogue Nuclear State’ to serve China’s strategic ends. Any future assistance by United States to retrieve Pakistan from its insolvency should be accompanied by iron-clad Pakistan guarantees to impose hard economic reforms, limit Pakistan Army defence expenditures and in concert with other Major Powers, excepting China, to downsize Pakistan Army’s Nuclear Weapons arsenal .

More than that Pakistani people have to prevail over their rulers, both military and civil, as Pakistan cannot afford to box much above its strategic weight. Nuclear Weapons do not impart economic strength for Pakistan, rather they are impoverishing the country.

The Antichrist in search of Iraqi deal

Iraq Sadr

Muqtada Sadr uses personal diplomacy in search of Iraqi deal

ALI NAJAFI/AFP via Getty ImagesDecember 8, 2021

BAGHDAD, Iraq – The United Nation special representative in Iraq, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, met today, Dec. 7, with the Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr, whose party won the largest numbers of seats in the recent parliamentary elections.

The UN is trying to help form the next government, following the deadlock among Iraqi political leaders. The Oct. 10 elections led to a remarkable victory for Sadr with 72 seats, which pushed Fatah block (affiliated with the Popular Mobilization Units) to form an alliance with Nouri Maliki’s State of Law. The two groups together have 59 seats.

Now, the Shiite political scene is divided into two main groups: Sadrists and the alliance between PMU and Maliki, which is called the Coordination Framework.

Sadr is looking for a majority government, meaning that he would ally with Kurds and Sunnis, leaving the Coordination Framework as the parliamentary opposition. But the Coordination Framework is looking for consensual government, which means all participate in the next government.

On Nov. 30, the Independent High Electoral Commission announced the final results of the legislative elections, showing the loss of the political parties allied with Iraq’s Shiite factions.

A few hours later, the Shiite Coordination Framework, which includes armed parties and factions, declared its rejection of the results. Meanwhile, Sadr confirmed that the elections were “fair,” calling on the “losing” parties not to allow the results to be the end of democracy in Iraq.

Shiite factions known for being close to Iran have been demonstrating for over a month now, denouncing the election results and threatening the government of Prime Minister Mustafa al-Khadimi, accusing it of “election fraud.”

On Dec.2, Sadrist movement leaders met with the leaders of the Coordination Framework, including the leader of Asaib Ahl al-Haq faction, Qais Khazali; the head of State of Law Coalition, Nuri al-Maliki; and the head of Fatah bloc, Hadi Ameri. The meeting was a bid to break the deadlock between the two sides. 

The head of the Iraqi Consultative Council, Farhad Alaeddin, told Al-Monitor, “Sadr is looking for a political solution that would lead to the cabinet formation [where] those opposing the election’s results might get a greater share of power in next cabinet in a way that satisfies them.”

“Sadr will, at a later stage, discuss with them the naming of the prime minister, and may agree with them that choice of premier would be done in agreement with them,” he added. 

Rahmah al-Jubouri, a former senior researcher at the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington, said, “The Shiite Coordination Framework may have accepted the election results,” but they want a cabinet similar to previous ones rather than a Sadr-controlled government.

“Should Sadr takes control of the government and the state in general, he will likely face a dangerous confrontation with the armed factions — something that he does not want,” he added.

Sadr does not wish to miss this opportunity, but at the same time he is not willing to comply with all of the Shiite Coordination Framework’s demands, which is why he is carefully trying  to win the opposing parties over.

Observers believe that the factions affiliated with Iran are likely to escalate against the United States’ interests in Iraq. However, they believe that the real intention is to make gains in the upcoming government.

Informal discussions between Sadr and the Shiite Coordination Framework have yet to reveal any agreement on cabinet formation. But according to information obtained by Al-Monitor, “parties close to Iran will not be affected much in the next government formation, that is, they will not lose their influence in the executive branch.”

Sources who spoke to Al-Monitor said, “The parties are not as interested in the election results or the name of the new prime minister, as much as they are in preserving their power in the coming cabinet. They spoke of ‘threatening the communal peace.’” 

Sadr is trying to take advantage of the differences within the Shiite Coordination Framework in a bid to form his own cabinet, which is what Iran’s allies fear.

Ihsan al-Shammari, head of the Iraqi Centre for Political Thought, told Al-Monitor, “Sadr is seeking to secure the half plus one of the cabinet quorum in order to pass the laws he wants. Meanwhile, the Shiite Coordination Framework, especially Nouri al-Maliki, do not want that, which means that there won’t be full agreement on the cabinet formation.”

Shammari continued, “Sadr’s meeting with the factions’ heads came to alleviate the tension, but this does not suggest there has been a final agreement on everything.”

Sadr is seeking “consensus’ with major forces within the Shiite Coordination Framework, such as the State of Law; the National Wisdom Movement led by Ammar Hakim (who will not be part of the next cabinet according to information to Al-Monitor); as well as the Fatah Alliance, led by Hadi al-Amiri, the Ataa Movement led by Faleh al-Fayyad, and the Islamic Virture Party led by cleric Muhammad al-Yaqoubi.

Sadr, however, does not appear to be interested in an agreement with the Hezbollah Brigades, or other armed groups that rejected the election results, which suggests that he is seeking a rapprochement with parties with political rather than armed influence, to form a cabinet and defuse the political tension. This seems particularly true even if the armed factions escalate military action against diplomatic missions or US military bases.

According to sources within the Shiite Coordination Framework who spoke to Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity, “The framework somewhat accepted the election results, but does not wish to give up the gains it had made in previous governments.” 

“The Shiite Coordination Framework wants to keep heading the same parliamentary committees as it previously did, even if its number of seats does not qualify for this. It is seeking the same thing in the executive branch,” the sources added.

It appears that tension between Sadr and the armed factions is likely to persist, but it is unlikely that things would degenerate into a full-on clash.

Welcome to 2022, the year of the Expanding Nuclear Horns: Daniel

Op-ed: Welcome to 2022, the year of living dangerously with China, Russia and Iran – but the U.S. will drive the plot

Published Sat, Dec 18 2021 3:02 PM ESTUpdated Sat, Dec 18 2021 3:02 PM EST

Brace yourself for 2022, a year of living dangerously.

Many of the world’s most profound gains of the post-World War II era will be tested. The security of Europe and Asia, the resilience of democratic governance, the advance of open markets, the sanctity of individual rights and the certainty of human progress all are in the balance.

Never in the 30 years since the Cold War’s end has a U.S. president entered a new year confronting such an explosive brew of geopolitical and domestic political uncertainty. They are intertwined like a Gordian knot that only bold action can untangle.

The convergence of these external and internal perils, amid deep U.S. political divisiveness and international diffidence, raises the difficulty level for any effective response.

Then layer onto all that the most disturbing rise of inflation in three decades and the persistent torment of Covid-19. Add to that the certainty that all these issues will drive an even greater wedge between rich and poor countries and peoples, and increased global volatility seems inevitable.

All that said, these are the three external factors that should concern us most immediately in 2022:

A revanchist Russia is bent on regaining control of Ukraine; China, similarly, is escalating its threats to Taiwan’s independence (don’t fool yourself that Ukrainian and Taiwanese freedoms can be separated); and Iran is so rapidly moving toward nuclear-weapons breakout capability that Israel may be forced to respond.

These dangers are escalating at a time when Chinese, Russian and Iranian leaders alike – having witnessed the Biden administration’s withdrawal from Afghanistan and its understandable focus on domestic issues – may see 2022 as the best moment yet to advance their geopolitical ambitions.

The optimists among us can take some comfort in the fact that there is a possible path through this briar patch. Advances in technology, health care, and wider human access to knowledge may very well usher in a new epoch of global progress.

There’s also more than enough evidence that democracies, particularly the United States, have sufficient resilience to rebound and regroup. 

History also has shown that the most authoritarian forms of government prove ultimately to be the most fragile.

China’s remarkable rise as the world’s first capitalist-communist experiment is running up against a series of setbacks, mostly self-inflicted.

President Xi Jinping is doubling down on domestic repression and reinforcing Communist Party control over China’s most successful companies, particularly in the technology space. In so doing, he is choking them off from international financial markets – and he may be killing the panda that laid China’s economic miracle.

Vladimir Putin’s Russia seems to be a country on the march, pumped up by spiking energy prices and geopolitical muscle-flexing from Syria to the Donbas. However, the weight of existing and new economic sanctions, Russia’s demographic challenges, and an economy entirely reliant on energy will hamstring Putin’s aspirations to undo the humiliations of his lifetime.

In a documentary that aired on Russian television last Sunday, Putin said the fall of the Soviet Union three decades ago remained a tragedy for most of his fellow citizens. He talked for the first time publicly about how he had to work driving a taxi during that period to make ends meet.

“After all, what is the collapse of the Soviet Union?” he asked. “This is the collapse of historical Russia under the name of the Soviet Union.”

Regarding Iran, how much longer can the regime endure -such rampant corruption?  The republic has produced so few goods for its people, while engaging in countless, expensive adventures abroad – in Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere in the Middle East.  

Yet perhaps this all points to the greatest danger of 2022: the swirl of uncertainties around the United States. Adversaries and allies alike question our internal cohesiveness and our external capability and willingness to act.

The glue that has held the global system together during most of the period after WWII, the United States, looks unstuck to many in the world. America doesn’t want China or anyone else to replace its traditional global leadership role, and it’s not retiring from the scene. But it’s struggling to find updated and effective means to shape world affairs.

To be fair, the Biden administration and its remarkably accomplished foreign relations team diagnosed each of these challenges early and brilliantly.

Indeed, in this space a year ago, I wrote, “Joe Biden has that rarest of opportunities that history provides: the chance to be a transformative foreign policy president.”

In March, Biden himself declared, “Our world is at an inflection point. Global dynamics have shifted. New crises demand our attention. … One thing is certain: we will only succeed in advancing American interests and upholding our universal values by working in common cause with our closest allies and partners, and by renewing our own enduring sources of national strength.”

It’s never easy to turn rhetoric into execution, but that is what 2022 needs to be about.  A president’s first year in office is always messy, and this one has been particularly so.

The true test of Biden’s second year will be less over whether his administration understands the historic nature of the challenges (it does) and more about whether it can organize itself domestically and internationally to manage 2022’s geopolitical challenges.

Worse than questioning our values, our partners and allies are worried about our capability and competence to act.

This year of living dangerously will get off to a brisk start with the Winter Olympics in Beijing and more Russian troop movements near Ukraine.  It will wrap up with a Chinese Communist Party Congress likely to make Xi leader for life and U.S. midterm elections.

In this year of living dangerously, however, it may be the U.S., more than any other actor, whose actions and inactions will drive the plot. 

— is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Atlantic Council.

Russian Nuclear Weapons Spread to Europe:Daniel 7

Belarus Considers Hosting Russian Nuclear Weapons

On Dec 18, 2021

Belarus could decided to host Russian nuclear weapons on its territory amid growing tensions with the West and the ongoing NATO buildup in neighboring states, specifically Poland, Minsk’s foreign minister has warned.

“As President [Alexander] Lukashenko said, we are considering the possibility of deploying nuclear weapons on the territory of Belarus as one of the potential responses to future possible actions by the NATO bloc on the territory of Poland,” Belarusian Foreign Minister Vladimir Makei told RT Arabic in an exclusive interview on Friday.

In late November, Lukashenko floated the idea as an option if US atomic missiles were to be deployed deeper into Eastern Europe.

“I will suggest that [Russia’s President Vladimir] Putin return nuclear weapons to Belarus,” Lukashenko stated, adding that “those nuclear armaments would be the most effective” deterrent.

Read more

Alexander Lukashenko © REUTERS / Shamil Zhumatov
Belarus may invite Russian nuclear weapons into country

Shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Belarus joined the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), voluntarily giving up the nuclear weaponry it inherited. The remaining systems were transferred to Russia by late 1996.

Belarus has other, less dramatic options to retaliate against the hostile moves by the West, Makei stated, with economic measures also on the table. He reiterated the idea of stopping the transit of natural gas for the Western European market from going through the country’s territory.

“It is just one of the possible responses to the sanctions that the West has imposed against Belarus,” he said.

The relationship between Belarus and the West rapidly deteriorated after the country’s August 2020 presidential election and mass protests that followed. The EU has refused to recognize the outcome of the vote, in which Lukashenko secured a solid win according to the official tally. It has also targeted select officials with sanctions for “violence” and the alleged “falsification” of the results

Ties have deteriorated even further over the past few months, after Minsk said it had opted to stop turning back migrants seeking to reach the EU in retaliation for the sanctions imposed by the bloc. The EU, in turn, accused Belarus of artificially stirring up illegal migration as a part of its alleged “hybrid warfare” against the bloc, a charge that Belarus has consistently denied.

Minsk’s move has resulted in a particularly heated situation at its border with Poland, with hundreds of people trying to get into the EU by force. Poland deployed a massive number of police officers and soldiers in response, seeking to prevent illegal entries. Currently, some 1,000 illegal migrants still remain on Belarusian soil, according to the country’s foreign minister.

The illusion of economic peace outside the Temple Walls: Revelation 11

פועלים פלסטינים מחברון

The illusion of economic peace between Israelis and Palestinians

Opinion: This government, like many before it, is working on improving economic conditions in the West Bank and Gaza in the hopes that it would reduce tensions; but will it actually ever lead to an end to the conflict?

MIchael Mistein|Published: 12.18.21,

It was 50 years ago when a heated debate played out in the ministerial committee for defense on the question of employment of Palestinian workers in Israel.Follow Ynetnews on Facebook and TwitterCOVID ‘Viral Blizzard’ Will Soon Hit US, Health Experts PredictKeep WatchingJudge Overturns Purdue Pharma Deal That Shielded Sacklers From Civil Lawsuits00:00/01:30 Then-Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, who dictated Israel’s policy vis-a-vie the territories captured in the 1967 Six Day War, was in favor of merging the economies as part of his vision for two separate political entities.

Dayan wanted an autonomous rule for Palestinians in order to advance a positive standard of living that would distance the population from politics and terror.An opposing view was held by then-Labor Minister Yigal Alon, who cautioned against a path that would ultimately lead to annexation of the territories. He advocated for a full separation of the two populations, although he was not a proponent of an independent Palestinian state.Then-Prime Minister Golda Meir was also in opposition to Dayan’s view because she was concerned for the work ethics of Israelis and worried that Palestinians could stage a strike at any moment and interrupt the work flow – if they were to take up positions in construction, agriculture and more.

A Palestinian works at a construction site in East Jerusalem

Israelis, who are not quick to delve into the history books, may be unaware that today the government is once again debating the very same questions, reaching similar conclusions and taking the same steps in an effort to forge the so-called “economic peace,” aimed at ensuring long-term security.This is a temporary fix that the government hopes will become permanent.There is nothing wrong with a policy meant to improve the lives of Palestinians. But, when that becomes the principle aim of the government and does not include a political resolution or even a public debate over how best to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, future ramifications can be grave.The government has in recent months taken accelerated its policy to promote the economic peace.

חיסון קורונה במחסום קלנדיה

In Gaza, work permits, (dubbed trade permits) were issued in numbers reminiscent of pre-withdrawal days, as a precursor for a grand strategic program for economical development of the enclave. In the West Bank, work permits are being expedited with greater efficiency, vocational training being offered to Palestinians – including in the high-tech industry – and Israeli quality control certificates are being offered to local factories.Just as was done 50 years ago, the government has adopted the idea that economic stumbling blocks must be removed in order to better the lives of the West Bank population in order to minimize political controversy and security challenges. But in fact, what the government is doing is buying short-term calm at the price of even a more violent conflict down the road.

מחכים להגשת הבקשה לאישור עבודה

In Gaza, Israel’s policy will solidify the Hamas rule over the Strip and make Qatar a permanent player in the region, with its aid money. It will enable the Islamist group to make political inroads and increase its military strength. In the West Bank, Israel’s policies have yielded quiet on the security front, but by injecting the Palestinian economy into that of Israel, it will bring a about a de-facto annexation that will ultimately lead to a one-state solution.The economy is a prominent component of Israeli-Palestinian relations, which has enabled relative security over the past decade, despite countless political challenges.But in the long-run, Palestinians will rise against the inequity between both economies – which is not likely to change – so there should be a review of the policy based on past experiences.

פנחס ספיר

Israel’s former iconic Finance Minister Pinchas Sapir cautioned 50 years ago against what he called “an extreme merging of the economies,” and warned that “annexation is annexation,” even when it is not officially announced. The calm that the “economic peace” brings comes at the cost of a changing reality that may lead Israelis and Palestinians beyond the point of no return, when the two would not be able to separate from each other. Michael Milstein is the head of the Palestinian Studies Forum at the Moshe Dayan Center at Tel Aviv University and a member of the INSS