USGS Evidence Shows Power of the Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

New Evidence Shows Power of East Coast Earthquakes
Virginia Earthquake Triggered Landslides at Great DistancesReleased: 

11/6/2012 8:30:00 AM USGS.gov

Earthquake shaking in the eastern United States can travel much farther and cause damage over larger areas than previously thought.

U.S. Geological Survey scientists found that last year’s magnitude 5.8 earthquake in Virginia triggered landslides at distances four times farther—and over an area 20 times larger—than previous research has shown.

“We used landslides as an example and direct physical evidence to see how far-reaching shaking from east coast earthquakes could be,”

said Randall Jibson, USGS scientist and lead author of this study. “Not every earthquake will trigger landslides, but we can use landslide distributions to estimate characteristics of earthquake energy and how far regional ground shaking could occur.”

“Scientists are confirming with empirical data what more than 50 million people in the eastern U.S. experienced firsthand: this was one powerful earthquake,” said USGS Director Marcia McNutt. “Calibrating the distance over which landslides occur may also help us reach back into the geologic record to look for evidence of past history of major earthquakes from the Virginia seismic zone.”

This study will help inform earthquake hazard and risk assessments as well as emergency preparedness, whether for landslides or other earthquake effects.

This study also supports existing research showing that although earthquakes  are less frequent in the East, their damaging effects can extend over a much larger area as compared to the western United States.

The research is being presented today at the Geological Society of America conference, and will be published in the December 2012 issue of the

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

The USGS found that the farthest landslide from the 2011 Virginia earthquake was 245 km (150 miles) from the epicenter. This is by far the greatest landslide distance recorded from any other earthquake of similar magnitude. Previous studies of worldwide earthquakes indicated that landslides occurred no farther than 60 km (36 miles) from the epicenter of a magnitude 5.8 earthquake.

“What makes this new study so unique is that it provides direct observational evidence from the largest earthquake to occur in more than 100 years in the eastern U.S,” said Jibson. “Now that we know more about the power of East Coast earthquakes, equations that predict ground shaking might need to be revised.”

It is estimated that approximately one-third of the U.S. population could have felt last year’s earthquake in Virginia, more than any earthquake in U.S. history.

About 148,000 people reported their ground-shaking experiences caused by the earthquake on the USGS “Did You Feel It?” website. Shaking reports came from southeastern Canada to Florida and as far west as Texas.

In addition to the great landslide distances recorded, the landslides from the 2011 Virginia earthquake occurred in an area 20 times larger than expected from studies of worldwide earthquakes. Scientists plotted the landslide locations that were farthest out and then calculated the area enclosed by those landslides. The observed landslides from last year’s Virginia earthquake enclose an area of about 33,400 km2

, while previous studies indicated an expected area of about 1,500 km2

from an earthquake of similar magnitude.

“The landslide distances from last year’s Virginia earthquake are remarkable compared to historical landslides across the world and represent the largest distance limit ever recorded,” said Edwin Harp, USGS scientist and co-author of this study. “There are limitations to our research, but the bottom line is that we now have a better understanding of the power of East Coast earthquakes and potential damage scenarios.”

The difference between seismic shaking in the East versus the West is due in part to the geologic structure and rock properties that allow seismic waves to travel farther without weakening.

Learn more

about the 2011 central Virginia earthquake.

Russian Horn: Do not underestimate threat of nuclear war

Russia’s Lavrov: Do not underestimate threat of nuclear war

Reuters

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov speaks during a news conference after his talks with Bahrain’s Foreign Minister Abdullatif al-Zayani in Moscow, Russia, April 7, 2022. Alexander Zemlianichenko/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo

April 26 (Reuters) – Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned the West on Monday not to underestimate the elevated risks of nuclear conflict over Ukraine and said he viewed NATO as being “in essence” engaged in a proxy war with Russia by supplying Kyiv with weaponry.

Lavrov, in a wide-ranging interview broadcast on state television, also said that the core of any agreement to end the conflict in Ukraine would depend largely on the military situation on the ground.

Lavrov had been asked about the importance of avoiding World War Three and whether the current situation was comparable to the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, a low point in U.S-Soviet relations.

Russia, Lavrov said, was doing a lot to uphold the principle of striving to prevent nuclear war at all costs.

“This is our key position on which we base everything. The risks now are considerable,” Lavrov said.Report ad

“I would not want to elevate those risks artificially. Many would like that. The danger is serious, real. And we must not underestimate it.”

Russia’s two-month-old invasion of Ukraine, the biggest attack on a European state since 1945, has left thousands dead or injured, reduced towns and cities to rubble and forced over 5 million people to flee abroad. read more

Moscow calls its actions a “special operation” to disarm Ukraine and protect it from fascists. Ukraine and the West says this a false pretext for an unprovoked war of aggression by President Vladimir Putin.

Lavrov, defending Moscow’s actions, also blamed Washington for the lack of dialogue.

“The United States has practically ceased all contacts simply because we were obliged to defend Russians in Ukraine,” Lavrov said, repeating the rationale for Moscow’s invasion of its southern neighbour.

But he said Western supplies of sophisticated weapons, including Javelin anti-tank missiles, armoured vehicles and advanced drones were provocative measures calculated to prolong the conflict rather than bring it to an end.

“These weapons will be a legitimate target for Russia’s military acting within the context of the special operation,” Lavrov said.

“Storage facilities in western Ukraine have been targeted more than once (by Russian forces). How can it be otherwise?” he added. “NATO, in essence, is engaged in a war with Russia through a proxy and is arming that proxy. War means war.”

He said that Kyiv authorities were not negotiating in good faith and President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, a former actor, was like British Prime Minister Boris Johnson in playing to the public rather than addressing the task at hand — negotiations.

“They are similar in a way in their ability to play to the gallery. For example, they imitate negotiations,” Lavrov said.

Antichrist Floats Ban on Iraq-Israel Relations

Iraqi Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr Floats Ban on Iraq-Israel Relations

Muqtada al-Sadr, the firebrand cleric whose namesake political party is the largest in Iraq’s parliament, announced on Saturday that his allied legislators would submit a bill for consideration that would officially criminalize attempts to normalize diplomatic relations with Israel.

The cleric made the announcement on Twitter, where he indicated that his party “would soon announce a draft project to criminalize normalization and dealing with the Zionist entity [Israel] at all.”

Sadr argued that normalization with the Jewish state stemmed from “Israeli ambitions to dominate our beloved Iraq.” According to Rudaw, a Kurdistan-based Iraqi news outlet, Sadr claimed that preventing Iraqi relations with Israel was “one of the core reasons” that the Sadrist Movement, Sadr’s party, became “involved with the electoral process again.”

Sadr’s proposed legislation comes nearly two years after the initiation of the Abraham Accords, the peace deal that established formal diplomatic relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates. Bahrain, a small Persian Gulf island state, immediately joined the Accords; Sudan and Morocco also normalized relations with Israel later in the year. Other Arab nations, most notably Saudi Arabia, are known to maintain furtive political and economic ties with Israel, although they have not yet formally normalized their relations. Other Middle Eastern countries, most notably Iran, have definitively ruled out such normalizations.

The proposed legislation appears to have come in response to a conference that took place in Erbil, the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan, in September. At that conference, around 300 Iraqi political and economic leaders discussed Baghdad’s entry into the Abraham Accords, which they suggested would lead to economic benefits for the country. Sadr harshly criticized that meeting, insisting that the country’s leadership “must forbid such terrorist Zionist meetings” and calling for the attendees to be arrested.

Sadr’s ties to Iran are a matter of continued controversy. During the U.S. occupation of Iraq from 2003 until 2010, the cleric fought against American troops and sought sanctuary within Iran from 2007 until 2011. However, his supporters also played a significant role in the October 2019 protest movement against the government of Iraqi prime minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi, whose foreign policy was closely aligned with Tehran’s. Sadr’s victory in Iraq’s October 2021 parliamentary elections largely came at the expense of pro-Iranian political parties and militia groups, who initially insisted that the results had been fraudulent and vowed not to accept them.

Trevor Filseth is a current and foreign affairs writer for the National Interest.

Image: Reuters.

Iran’s obvious aim was to make nuclear bomb: Daniel 8

Iran’s earlier aim was to make nuclear bomb: Former Iranian MP

Former Iranian Member of Parliament Ali Motahari, is seen during a speech in this undated photo. (AA Photo)

by Anadolu Agency Apr 25, 2022 12:20 pm

Iran initially sought to develop a nuclear bomb to strengthen its deterrent forces but was unable to maintain the secrecy of the program, a former deputy speaker of the Islamic Consultative Assembly and former member of parliament stated on Sunday.

“From the very beginning, when we entered the nuclear activity, our goal was to build a bomb and strengthen the deterrent forces, but we could not maintain the secrecy of this issue, and the secret reports were revealed by the group of hypocrites,” Ali Motahari told Iran-based Iscanews, referring to the National Council of Resistance of Iran, a coalition of opposition parties.

He said a country that wants to use nuclear power peacefully never starts enrichment but first establishes a reactor and then enters the field of enrichment.

“But the fact that we enrich directly creates the illusion that we want to make a bomb,” noted Motahari.

The opinion of the country’s current leader is that developing a nuclear bomb is absolutely illegal, he added.

‘Always peaceful’

Meanwhile, the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) said the country’s nuclear program has always been peaceful and has never had a military aim.

Speaking to Nournews, a news website affiliated with Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, an official from the AEOI who asked not to be named rejected Motahari’s remarks.

“Iran’s peaceful nuclear program has never been militarily oriented. The explanations of unauthorized persons on this subject are due to their ignorance or their special political approaches,” he added.

Officials of the Islamic Republic have repeatedly cited a fatwa, or ruling, issued by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei declaring the use of chemical and nuclear weapons “haram,” or forbidden.

India’s Nuclear Warfare Against The State Of Pakistan: Revelation 8

Border personnel from India and Pakistan during the Wagah Border ceremony. Photo by Therealhiddenace, Wikipedia Commons.

India’s Hybrid Warfare Against The State Of Pakistan – OpEd

April 25, 2022 Rauf Khalid*

By Rauf Khalid*

Hybrid warfare is the new aged doctrine of warfare based on achieving national interests by attacking the enemy’s vulnerabilities and weaknesses by using a blend of non-conventional, irregular and tactical methods of warfare and other non-kinetic means. This blend involves intelligence operations, cyber warfare, proxy warfare, information warfare, propaganda, psychological and political warfare, clever diplomacy and many more. The purpose of hybrid warfare is basically to destabilize, disintegrate and demobilize the enemy.

Global and regional dynamics of conflicts are rapidly changing and posing challenges to traditional state structures and military approaches. Conflicts between national armies are gradually waning and giving rise to non-linear matrix of actors and techniques. The meanings of victory and defeat in battlefield are also changed with the terminology quickly becoming the relic of the past. South Asia is no exception, the continuous state of conflict between India and Pakistan is changing and blurring the line between states of war and peace.

Today wars are no longer declared. Concerns were raised by Pakistan’s COAS Gen. Qamar Javed Bajwa while addressing at Pakistan Military Academy, when he stated that ‘Pakistan is facing enormous challenges both in conventional and sub conventional domains, our enemies know that they cannot beat us fair & stair, thus subjected us to cruel, evil and protracted hybrid war’. Without naming any country, Gen. Bajwa clearly indicated the precarious situations on eastern and western borders with India and Afghanistan and the growing covert activities of hostile agencies.

The Republic of India cannot accord the risk an all-out war with Pakistan, which could definitely lead to exchange of nuclear weapons or a limited war that may severely have economic impacts on whole region. Indian leadership has therefore chosen to wage a hybrid war against Pakistan, in which the use of irregular forces and terrorism as a key instrument. Indian media has been waging information warfare against Pakistan through various Bollywood movies, e.g. URI; The surgical strike, Raazi, Parmanu; the story of Pokhran, phantom and so on.

Indian lobbyists and Indian international media industry are doing propaganda against Pakistan, in order to create an international image of Pakistan as terrorist sponsoring state. Indian media channels started war maneuvering in the post pulwama scenario that the suicide bomber in the pulwama attack came from Pakistan. Cyber warfare is known to be most important component of a hybrid war. During the post pulwama situation, Indian state launched a covert cyber-attack on Pakistan in which Pakistan’s government, military and commercial assets were targeted. Various official Websites of Pakistan, i.e.; foreign office were hacked and put out of services.

India is waging an economic warfare against Pakistan in order to weaken its economy and making it a fragile state, with a mission to get regional domination. India has been waging a water conflict against Pakistan, in order to hamper its economic and agricultural growth. India had used water as a weapon against Pakistan since 1947. The famous canal water dispute of 1947 in west Punjab is worth mentioning in this regard that caused severe impacts on economy and also the chances of famine. India had violated Indus Water treaty by construction of dams and barrages over river Chenab. 

India is also using Afghanistan’s land against Pakistan with it two front warfare strategy. Since 2011, India had spent about 2 billion dollars on development projects in Afghanistan, among which one is the construction of dams on Kabul river, that is a source of 26% annual flow of water to Pakistan, moreover it provides livelihood to 25 million population living around the basin. That is an alarming situation for Pakistan being highly dependent on Agricultural sector, it could become most water stressed state by 2040. Political warfare is the final element of a hybrid warfare, which uses lawfare, diplomatic and political instruments as a tool to weaken the enemy. The scenario of Indian activities in FATF against Pakistan to enhance its own foreign policy components is worth mentioning in this regard.

Moreover, narrative building against Pakistan is also done to declare Pakistan as a terrorist supporter and insurgencies initiator state. Narrative against Pakistan Nuclear assets and military institutions are also built, such as a non-nuclear Pakistan would be more peaceful and cooperative in the region (nuclear proliferation optimism), or the spending over defense budget are useless etc. moreover, concerns are also raised over safety and security of Pakistan’s nuclear assets and it is also linked with the threat of nuclear terrorism.

CPEC has also been fell prey to this political warfare, as CPEC is a game-changer for Pakistan. Efforts are being done to subvert this economic prosperity of Pakistan. False information is shared regarding its routes and sector-wise spending to create a trust deficit among the provinces of Pakistan. Another component of political warfare is the use of various so called revolutionary groups which represents themselves as a vessel for political or social change. There are several peaceful as well as violent such groups operating in Pakistan that are backed by Indian state. These groups involves revolutionaries like Hizbut-Tehreer in 2011 or violent groups like tehreek-e-taliban, or separatists like Mukti Bani’s militant group in East Pakistan backed by Indian Army in 1971, or Afghanistan based Baluchistan Liberation front (BLF), also includes the agitators like Baloch Republican Army (BRA) & Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) that wages insurgencies and sabotage for their own interests against state of Pakistan.

These are groups are actively supported by Indian states under The Doval Doctrine, as revealed by Commander Kal Bhushan Jadhav. These group were responsible in a number of terrorist attacks in Pakistan including the one on Quaid’s residency in Ziarat, Quetta, and also on Chinese consulate in Karachi. In addition to this political pressure groups and NGO’s are also used to destabilize the peaceful environment of a state, for example the revolutionary Laal movement and Aurat March etc.

There are so many other components of this hybrid warfare launched by India against Pakistan. The need of the hour is to counter these Hybrid Threat through mutual public solidarity instead of political and ideological isolation. Military and Government institutions need public support to cope with these hybrid attacks.

*Author is a student at National Defense University Islamabad. He is pursuing Bachelors degree in Strategic Studies. His area of interest includes Geo-politics of South Asia. He can be contacted at rkcheema001@gmail.com

World without nuclear weapons is not Scriptural: Revelation 16

Rescuers work to remove debris from a building that was hit in a military strike, amid Russia’s invasion, in Odesa, Ukraine. – REUTERS PIC

World without nuclear weapons a necessity

By Dr Mohammad Naqib Eishan Jan – April 24, 2022 @ 10:00am

The war in Ukraine has sounded the alarm about the possible use of nuclear weapons, especially when, on Feb 27, President Vladimir Putin ordered Russia’s nuclear forces to be placed on a “special combat regime”.

Following this, on March 14, United Nations secretary-general Antonio Guterres stated that “the prospect of nuclear conflict, once unthinkable, is now back within the realm of possibility”.

This is a “bone-chilling development”, reinforced when UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs Izumi Nakamitsu warned later that month about possible risk of “mushroom clouds appearing on the battlefield”.

However, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov ruled out the possibility of using nuclear weapons in the Ukraine war, saying Russia would only use them if it faced an “existential threat” and the conflict has “nothing to do with” any threat to Russia’s existence.

The question is why weapons with such destructive power are accumulated in some countries. What is the benefit to humanity if they have no good use, except death and destruction? Why not eradicate them?

Nine countries have stockpiles of “nuclear weapons”, devices (bombs or missiles) that use “nuclear energy to detonate” and are perceived to have “the potential to wreck horrendous destruction”.

These weapons, according to the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs, are “the most dangerous weapons on earth” that a single one of it, if detonated, “can destroy a whole city, potentially killing millions, jeopardising the natural environment and lives of future generations through its long-term catastrophic effects”.

There are reportedly “about 14,000 [nuclear weapons] stockpiled” in the world today. To date, “more than 2,000 nuclear tests” have been conducted.

Nuclear weapons were used twice in warfare, both in 1945, over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

There is no guarantee that they will not be used in the future. Otherwise, why are they stockpiled? Some may argue that they are kept as a deterrent in preventing possible aggressive wars against nuclear-weapon states.

That may be true for the security of nuclear-armed countries, which are few, but what about the security of the rest of the world which does not have nuclear weapons?

As weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons are so dangerous that, if used, “everyone’s destruction [is] assured”. Yet they remain until today a part of national armament of nuclear weapon states.

Countries with such weapons are aware of their destructive power, but have not yet shown interest in disarming completely.

The UN has repeatedly warned that nuclear weapons do no good to humanity, other than death and destruction, and must be eradicated, but countries with such weapons still do not listen.

The UN General Assembly resolution in 1946 sought “the elimination from national armaments of atomic weapons and of all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction”, but to no avail.

States possessing such weapons ignored this resolution and kept their arsenals as “a key part of the security order that emerged after the end of World War II”.

This so-called security order may guarantee the security of countries with nuclear weapons, but as the war in Ukraine proves, it does not guarantee the security of countries without them.

Some of the most powerful nuclear-weapons states — the United States, Britain, Russia, France, and China — have ratified the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which prohibits nuclear proliferation, but allows them to maintain their nuclear stockpiles.

Other nuclear-weapon states such as India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel have not even accepted this treaty.

In addition, none of the nuclear states have ratified the Treaty
on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which entered into force on Jan 22 last year and prohibits the developing, testing, producing and manufacturing, acquisition, possession or storage of nuclear weapons or other explosive nuclear services.

This treaty, if not ratified by states with nuclear weapons, remains just “a bargain between states without nuclear weapons, who pledged not to acquire such weapons”.

This means that countries with nuclear weapons will continue to maintain their reserves, despite the prevailing view that the mere existence of such weapons threatens human survival.

It is not right to keep nuclear stockpiles because, as Guterres rightly put it, the existence of such weapons brings humanity “unacceptably close to nuclear annihilation”.

It’s still not too late to save humanity from possible annihilation. Nuclear-weapon states should ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons to legally oblige them to disarm.

For now, they are morally obligated to destroy their nuclear arsenals, and they should do this for the sake of their own survival and that of others.

Remember, nuclear weapons do not discriminate between those who use them, those who are targeted, the neutrals or the innocents.

There is “nothing more important and urgent” than eradicating those weapons or else, as some warn, a “doomsday scenario” awaits humanity.

---

The writer is a professor at Ahmad Ibrahim Kulliyyah of Laws, International Islamic University Malaysia

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the New Straits Times

The War Outside the Temple Walls: Revelation 11

The Hamas Wars

by Shoshana Bryen / JNS.org

OPINION

People hold Hamas flags as Palestinians gather after performing the last Friday of Ramadan to protest over the possible eviction of several Palestinian families from homes on land claimed by Jewish settlers in the Sheikh Jarrah neighbourhood, in Jerusalem’s Old City, May 7, 2021. REUTERS/Ammar Awad

JNS.org – Israel is not only the target of deadly violence incited and provoked by both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, it is in the physical and political middle of a 15-year-long civil war between the other two for control of both territory and the “Palestinian narrative.”

For months, Israeli intelligence sources had been watching and reporting on Palestinian violence both in the West Bank and in Israel as a result of civilian frustration with the repressive and corrupt PA stoked by Hamas, the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas presents itself as younger, stronger and purer than the PA, and the better guardian of Palestinian interests and holy places. Its claims are well-received by many, and Hamas flags flew above the Al-Aksa mosque on the weekend. PA strongman Mahmoud Abbas plays “catch up,” diverting from his troubles by inciting his people to violence against Israelis, continuing to pay “salaries” to terrorists and relying on the Israel Defense Forces to maintain security for himself and his cronies.

Yes, the Israeli government protects Abbas from Hamas — protects the rock from the hard place.

When the sirens went off in southern Israel on Monday night as Hamas launched rocket fire from the Gaza Strip into Israeli towns, it had the distinctly ugly smell of the run-up to the 11-day rocket war of last May.

It is worth a recap: Hamas won a plurality of seats in the 2006 election for a Palestinian legislature. Abbas refused to seat the legislature, resulting in the bloody ejection of the PA from Gaza and the creation of a Hamas government there in 2007. Fearful of a Hamas takeover of the West Bank as well, Abbas held no other elections. Pressed by the Biden administration, however, he announced a vote for early 2021. But the possibility of losing was ever-present. Abbas canceled the election and covered his failure with a campaign to incite violence against Israelis.

Beginning in early April 2021, Fatah called for riots, stabbings and general mayhem. At the end of April, to stake its claim to the “liberation” of Israel, Hamas began firing rockets from Gaza (more than 4,000, about 10% of which landed inside Gaza). On May 10, Israel fired back; 11 days later, there was a ceasefire. Hours after, the Associated Press reported thousands of Hamas supporters demonstrating against Abbas in the West Bank, chanting, “Dogs of the Palestinian Authority, out, out.” Hamas members were also seen victory dancing in Gaza.

Back to the present: The Abraham Accords, signed in 2020 among Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco with the active participation of the Trump administration, centered on economic and political coordination plus a concern for Iran. The accords thus moved the Palestinians and their claims against the State of Israel from the driver of Middle East politics to the periphery. Perhaps more importantly, the Trump administration invited the Palestinians to the table only if they met five basic requirements: respect for human rights; financial and political transparency; the end of incitement against Israel; halting financial compensation to terrorists; and eliminating Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Some people called those “preconditions.” Yes, indeed.

The Biden administration, on the other hand, saw the Palestinians as their priority and appeared to skip over the Hamas-PA internecine warfare as well as attacks by both on Israel. They announced the restoration of the “peace process,” the “two-state solution,” reopening the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem for Palestinians, and restoration of U.S. funds to the PA, despite the language of the Taylor Force Act. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken gave the priorities to then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at their first formal meeting:

• “To demonstrate the commitment of the U.S. to Israel’s security.”
• “To start to work towards greater stability and reduce tensions in the West Bank and Jerusalem.”
• “To support urgent humanitarian and reconstruction assistance for Gaza, to benefit the Palestinian people.”
• “To continue to rebuild our relationship with the Palestinian people and the Palestinian Authority.”

The Abraham Accords are generally referred to as “normalization agreements” rather than peace accords by the administration when they are referred to at all. The Palestinians, reasonably enough, concluded that they are again the driver, and everything flows from that, right up to the present calls for murdering Israelis and “Palestine from the river to the sea.”

The Palestinian people are in a wretched situation brought on by their own leadership in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and also by Israel’s not unreasonable fear that Hamas might, one day, actually win the civil war, leaving Israel with the Muslim Brotherhood on both sides of the Jewish state.

By centering American policy around a non-existent “peace process,” the Biden administration simply fans the flames of the Hamas war it appears not to understand.

Shoshana Bryen is senior director of the Jewish Policy Center and editor of inFOCUS Quarterly.Z