Quakeland: On the Road to America’s Next Devastating Earthquake: Revelation 6

Quakeland: On the Road to America’s Next Devastating Earthquake

Roger BilhamQuakeland: New York and the Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

Given recent seismic activity — political as well as geological — it’s perhaps unsurprising that two books on earthquakes have arrived this season. One is as elegant as the score of a Beethoven symphony; the other resembles a diary of conversations overheard during a rock concert. Both are interesting, and both relate recent history to a shaky future.

Journalist Kathryn Miles’s Quakeland is a litany of bad things that happen when you provoke Earth to release its invisible but ubiquitous store of seismic-strain energy, either by removing fluids (oil, water, gas) or by adding them in copious quantities (when extracting shale gas in hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, or when injecting contaminated water or building reservoirs). To complete the picture, she describes at length the bad things that happen during unprovoked natural earthquakes. As its subtitle hints, the book takes the form of a road trip to visit seismic disasters both past and potential, and seismologists and earthquake engineers who have first-hand knowledge of them. Their colourful personalities, opinions and prejudices tell a story of scientific discovery and engineering remedy.

Miles poses some important societal questions. Aside from human intervention potentially triggering a really damaging earthquake, what is it actually like to live in neighbourhoods jolted daily by magnitude 1–3 earthquakes, or the occasional magnitude 5? Are these bumps in the night acceptable? And how can industries that perturb the highly stressed rocks beneath our feet deny obvious cause and effect? In 2015, the Oklahoma Geological Survey conceded that a quadrupling of the rate of magnitude-3 or more earthquakes in recent years, coinciding with a rise in fracking, was unlikely to represent a natural process. Miles does not take sides, but it’s difficult for the reader not to.

She visits New York City, marvelling at subway tunnels and unreinforced masonry almost certainly scheduled for destruction by the next moderate earthquake in the vicinity. She considers the perils of nuclear-waste storage in Nevada and Texas, and ponders the risks to Idaho miners of rock bursts — spontaneous fracture of the working face when the restraints of many million years of confinement are mined away. She contemplates the ups and downs of the Yellowstone Caldera — North America’s very own mid-continent supervolcano — and its magnificently uncertain future. Miles also touches on geothermal power plants in southern California’s Salton Sea and elsewhere; the vast US network of crumbling bridges, dams and oil-storage farms; and the magnitude 7–9 earthquakes that could hit California and the Cascadia coastline of Oregon and Washington state this century. Amid all this doom, a new elementary school on the coast near Westport, Washington, vulnerable to inbound tsunamis, is offered as a note of optimism. With foresight and much persuasion from its head teacher, it was engineered to become an elevated safe haven.

Miles briefly discusses earthquake prediction and the perils of getting it wrong (embarrassment in New Madrid, Missouri, where a quake was predicted but never materialized; prison in L’Aquila, Italy, where scientists failed to foresee a devastating seismic event) and the successes of early-warning systems, with which electronic alerts can be issued ahead of damaging seismic waves. Yes, it’s a lot to digest, but most of the book obeys the laws of physics, and it is a engaging read. One just can’t help wishing that Miles’s road trips had taken her somewhere that wasn’t a disaster waiting to happen.

Catastrophic damage in Anchorage, Alaska, in 1964, caused by the second-largest earthquake in the global instrumental record.

In The Great Quake, journalist Henry Fountain provides us with a forthright and timely reminder of the startling historical consequences of North America’s largest known earthquake, which more than half a century ago devastated southern Alaska. With its epicentre in Prince William Sound, the 1964 quake reached magnitude 9.2, the second largest in the global instrumental record. It released more energy than either the 2004 Sumatra–Andaman earthquake or the 2011 Tohoku earthquake off Japan; and it generated almost as many pages of scientific commentary and description as aftershocks. Yet it has been forgotten by many.

The quake was scientifically important because it occurred at a time when plate tectonics was in transition from hypothesis to theory. Fountain expertly traces the theory’s historical development, and how the Alaska earthquake was pivotal in nailing down one of the most important predictions. The earthquake caused a fjordland region larger than England to subside, and a similarly huge region of islands offshore to rise by many metres; but its scientific implications were not obvious at the time. Eminent seismologists thought that a vertical fault had slipped, drowning forests and coastlines to its north and raising beaches and islands to its south. But this kind of fault should have reached the surface, and extended deep into Earth’s mantle. There was no geological evidence of a monster surface fault separating these two regions, nor any evidence for excessively deep aftershocks. The landslides and liquefied soils that collapsed houses, and the tsunami that severely damaged ports and infrastructure, offered no clues to the cause.

“Previous earthquakes provide clear guidance about present-day vulnerability.” The hero of The Great Quake is the geologist George Plafker, who painstakingly mapped the height reached by barnacles lifted out of the intertidal zone along shorelines raised by the earthquake, and documented the depths of drowned forests. He deduced that the region of subsidence was the surface manifestation of previously compressed rocks springing apart, driving parts of Alaska up and southwards over the Pacific Plate. His finding confirmed a prediction of plate tectonics, that the leading edge of the Pacific Plate plunged beneath the southern edge of Alaska along a gently dipping thrust fault. That observation, once fully appreciated, was applauded by the geophysics community.

Fountain tells this story through the testimony of survivors, engineers and scientists, interweaving it with the fascinating history of Alaska, from early discovery by Europeans to purchase from Russia by the United States in 1867, and its recent development. Were the quake to occur now, it is not difficult to envisage that with increased infrastructure and larger populations, the death toll and price tag would be two orders of magnitude larger than the 139 fatalities and US$300-million economic cost recorded in 1964.

What is clear from these two books is that seismicity on the North American continent is guaranteed to deliver surprises, along with unprecedented economic and human losses. Previous earthquakes provide clear guidance about the present-day vulnerability of US infrastructure and populations. Engineers and seismologists know how to mitigate the effects of future earthquakes (and, in mid-continent, would advise against the reckless injection of waste fluids known to trigger earthquakes). It is merely a matter of persuading city planners and politicians that if they are tempted to ignore the certainty of the continent’s seismic past, they should err on the side of caution when considering its seismic future.

Russian Horn Produces First Super-Nukes: Daniel 7

Russia produces first set of Poseidon super torpedoes – TASS

By Guy Faulconbridg

MOSCOW, Jan 16 (Reuters) – Russia has produced the first set of Poseidon nuclear capable super torpedoes that are being developed for deployment on the Belgorod nuclear submarine, TASS reported on Monday, citing an unidentified defence source.

Since a grim New Year’s Eve message describing the West as Russia’s true enemy in the war on Ukraine, President Vladimir Putin has sent several signals that Russia will not back down. He has despatched hypersonic missiles to the Atlantic and appointed his top general to run the war.

U.S. and Russian officials have both described Poseidon as a new category of retaliatory weapon, capable of triggering radioactive ocean swells to render coastal cities uninhabitable

“The first set of Poseidons have been manufactured, and the Belgorod submarine will receive them in the near future,” TASS, a state news agency, quoted the source as saying.

TASS said the main components of Poseidon, including a nuclear reactor to give the torpedo its own power source, had been successfully completed. The crew of the Belgorod nuclear submarine has also completed tests with models of the torpedo, TASS said.

The defence ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Putin first announced what would become known as Poseidon in 2018, saying it was a fundamentally new type of strategic nuclear weapon, confirming it would have its own nuclear power supply.

There are few confirmed details about the Poseidon in the public domain but it is essentially a cross between a torpedo and a drone which can be launched from a nuclear submarine.

Russia’s defence ministry has shown videos of the 24-metre Poseidon, known as Kanyon by NATO, including simulations showing it destroying an enemy aircraft carrier and hitting the shoreline.


The Poseidon has its roots in Soviet plans under Josef Stalin for a nuclear torpedo which would be able to devastate the shores of the United States.

In the 2018 speech, Putin said the range of the torpedo would be unlimited and that it could operate at extreme depths at a speed many times that of any submarine or other torpedoes.

“They are very low noise, have high maneuverability and are practically indestructible for the enemy. There is no weapon that can counter them in the world today,” Putin said.

The Poseidon will be carried by the K-329 Belgorod, a special purpose nuclear submarine that was built by the Sevmash Shipyard.

The United States said in its Nuclear Posture Review in 2022 that Russia and China “continue to expand and diversify their nuclear capabilities, to include novel and destabilizing systems.”

“Russia is pursuing several novel nuclear-capable systems designed to hold the U.S. homeland or Allies and partners at risk,” according to the Posture Review.

Last year, the U.S. Naval Institute said Russia’s development of Poseidon turned assumptions about submarine-launched nuclear weapons upside down.

“Perhaps most frightening, this nuclear weapon has the potential for autonomous operation,” the institute said.

“A fully operational Kanyon would have an incredible strategic impact,” it said in an article. “As a new delivery platform, it is not covered by current nuclear arms treaties.”

(This story has been corrected to show nuclear-capable Poseidons have been produced and not the nuclear warheads, it also corrects translation of the quote)

The Russian Horn Will Use Nukes: Revelation 16

Retired US General: Russia Will Use Nukes If Ukraine Continues ‘Success’

Russian President Vladimir Putin will use nuclear weapons if Ukraine continues its “success” on the battlefield, retired U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Kevin Ryan told Insider on Tuesday, the same day Russia deployed a nuclear-capable mortar weapon to the battlefield.

Russia “would use a nuclear weapon before it allowed its military to be defeated in the field,” Ryan said.

“If the Ukrainian military was having great success in the spring, and was chopping up the Russian military and was threatening taking back Crimea, then I think that the Russian military and leadership would use a nuclear weapon” to not only “destroy Ukrainian military targets,” but to “convince Ukraine that continuing to fight this war would leave Ukraine as a nuclear holocaust,” added Ryan, the former defense attaché to Russia from 2001 to 2003.

Ryan added that while Russia’s “choices are broad” for where to deploy nukes, “the level of deaths could approach Hiroshima, or it could be far less if they only intend to fire like a warning shot of a nuclear weapon” in a less populated spot.

Russia deployed a weapon nicknamed “the Sledgehammer,” a 2S4 Tulip that is capable of firing mortar rounds — likely those considered “micro-nukes,” which can destroy an area the size of a football stadium.

“This is a huge weapon, devastating when using conventional weapons and capable of smashing a large area,” an unnamed security source told the British publication Mirror. “But they will also be a very large target for Ukraine’s drone and artillery teams, who are hunting down Russia’s offensive equipment daily.”

Speculating on an end, the retired general added, “This war goes isn’t going to be determined at the negotiating table for a while and won’t be determined in the air by missiles and bombs. But it will be determined by the fighting on the ground.”

Also on Tuesday, media outlets reported that U.S. officials said Russia has lost three-quarters of its conventional firepower and suggested Putin is becoming more desperate.

Regarding the deployment of nuclear weapons in Ukraine, retired Col. Doug Macgregor, former senior adviser to the secretary of defense, told The Grayzone in March that the deployment of nuclear weapons could lead to unpredictable consequences.

“Remember,” Macgregor said, “nuclear weapons only have value in the modern world in terms of their potential to protect your territorial integrity. That’s it. The use of a nuclear weapon in any other situation is so destructive that no one sees any military utility to it, and no one wants to use it because it would have horrific consequences on the ground for anybody who’s near it. And keep in mind that if we were to use a nuclear weapon or the Russians were, you would end up with the prevailing winds blowing the fallout across Central Asia into Northeast China, Korea, and Japan. The whole idea is insane.”

© 2023 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Obamas Express Solidarity With Ongoing Protests In Iran 12 Year Too Late: Daniel 8

Former US President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama (April 10, 2014)

Obamas Express Solidarity With Ongoing Protests In Iran

Former US President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle have expressed solidarity with Iranian women and girls who have “inspired the world” through their protests.

The Obamas issued a statement Tuesday on the occasion of International Day of the Girl, saying they are “in awe” of those who have joined the reignited fight for women’s rights in Iran. 

Condemning the clampdown on popular uprising sparked by the death in custody of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini, they said, “The rights they seek are universal: equality, the ability to make their own choices about how they look and dress and express their identities, and the freedom to do so without facing harassment, intimidation, and violence.”

Addressing protestors, the Obamas said, “We are moved by your acts of protest, and bear witness to your bravery in facing down the brutality of a regime resisting calls for change. You are delivering a powerful message that injustice should not be tolerated.”

They sympathized with those who have tragically lost loved ones and expressed hope that “the future will ultimately belong to the young women and girls of Iran who are refusing to be silent.”

“You remind us that true power comes not from clinging to the past, but from the effort to build a better future,” they said. 

Earlier in the month, President Joe Biden said, “The United States stands with Iranian women and all the citizens of Iran who are inspiring the world with their bravery.”

Amid a near total internet shutdown across Iran and government helicopters circling above Tehran on Wednesday, protests are going on.

‘Iran has enough enriched uranium to make 4 nuclear bombs,’ Daniel 8

Chief of Staff of the Israeli occupation army, Aviv Kochavi on 12 November 2019 in Tel Aviv [Amir Levy/Getty Images]

‘Iran has enough enriched uranium to make 4 nuclear bombs,’ Israeli army says

January 14, 2023

IDF Chief Aviv Kochavi makes a statement in Tel Aviv, Israel. [Amir Levy/Getty Images]

January 14, 2023 at 12:56 pm 

Iran currently has enough enriched uranium to make four nuclear bombs, Israel’s outgoing military chief informed reporters on Friday.

“Iran today has enough enriched material to produce four nuclear bombs, three at 20 per cent and one at 60 per cent,” Israeli public broadcaster Kan reported outgoing Chief of Staff Aviv Kochavi telling reporters.

Kochavi shared that over the last year, the Israeli army prepared three programmes to launch an attack in Iran as a retaliatory strike, unrelated to the nuclear programme, to destroy nuclear facilities supporting the nuclear project.

Regarding targets for the Israeli army in Iran, he shared: “If it comes to entering a major battle, military sites and additional sites will be included in the list of targets.”

Kochavi added: “We have been engaged in accelerating preparations to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities in recent years and many other types of targets.”

According to Kochavi, the Israeli army has improved its intelligence related to targets in Iran and prepared enough munition for all of them.

Kochavi also said that there are thousands of Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, ranging from underground arsenals to homes where missiles are hidden, noting that Israel has thousands of targets in Lebanon – far more than 3,000-6,000 targets.

On 16 January, Major General Herzi Halevi will succeed Kochavi as his term in office expires.

Towards a nuclear-armed South Korea: Daniel 7

South Korean Hyeonmu ballistic missiles on display at the Korean War Memorial Museum in Seoul. Photo: Twitter / EPA-EFE / Jeon Heon Kyun 

President Yoon is first South Korean leader to raise possibility of building nuclear arms since 1991 while a poll shows 71% of Koreans are in favor

by Gabriel Honrada January 14, 2023

South Korea may be inching closer to acquiring its own nuclear weapons, driven by wavering confidence in US security guarantees and North Korea’s rapidly advancing nuclear program.

This week, The Warzone reported that South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol announced that his country might consider building tactical nuclear weapons in response to North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, the first time that a South Korean President raised the possibility since 1991.

“It’s possible that the problem gets worse, and our country will introduce tactical nuclear weapons or build them on our own. If that’s the case, we can have our own nuclear weapons pretty quickly, given our scientific and technological capabilities,” said Yoon according to reports.

President Yoon also mentioned that North Korea’s nuclear weapons pose a threat to the US and other allies, saying, “The North Korean nuclear threat is not only a threat to South Korea anymore, or an issue of the United States merely protecting South Korea. It has become a so-called common interest for South Korea, Japan, and the United States,” he said.

In addition, The Warzone states that Yoon mentioned the possibility of basing US tactical nuclear weapons in South Korea, noting that “It’s always important to choose a realistically possible means,” he said.

The Warzone notes that basing US nuclear weapons in South Korea has been a hot topic since President Yoon came to power last May, emphasizing that his immediate concern is strengthening South Korea’s alliance with the US and bolstering its military capabilities.

In line with President Yoon’s statements, South Korean attitudes increasingly favor going nuclear. A February 2022 study by the Carnegie Endowment for Regional Peace shows that 71% of the South Korean public favor having their own nuclear weapons, with 56% supporting the US deploying nuclear weapons in their territory. President Yoon Suk-yeol is weighing the nuclear option. Image: Twitter / Tasmin News Agency

Asked whether South Korea should have its own independent nuclear arsenal, the study shows that 67% prefer it, with only 9% supporting deployment of US nukes. In terms of opposing nuclear weapons, the study shows that 40% oppose US nuclear weapons deployment, while only 26% oppose having an independent nuclear arsenal.

Furthermore, the study shows that North Korea remains the primary driver for pro-nuclear South Korean sentiment, with 82% believing Pyongyang won’t give up its nuclear weapons, noting that these respondents were the most likely to support a South Korean independent nuclear arsenal.

Apart from North Korea, the study notes that 55% of respondents believe China will be South Korea’s primary security challenge in the next decade. The study also shows that prestige is a driving factor for favorable South Korean public opinion toward having nuclear weapons, with 26% mentioning South Korea’s increasing international prestige driving their support.

Another driver for the South Korean public’s favorable views on nuclear weapons may be the US operational command of the latter’s military. In an August 2019 article for the Carnegie Endowment for Regional Peace, Kathryn Botto notes that since the 1950s, the US has been designated operational command (OPCOM) of South Korea’s military in the event of hostilities.

Moreover, she notes that South Korea’s situation is an anomaly as other US allies such as Japan and even weaker US partners such as Iraq and the Philippines maintain OPCOM of their militaries.

This arrangement may hinder South Korea from acting independently to defend itself against North Korea. In a June 2022 policy paper for Stimson, Clint Work notes that while the US has been encouraging South Korea to take a more active role in the alliance command structure, US officials have been reluctant to relinquish control too quickly.

Work also mentions that South Korea has been unwilling to assume OPCOM since doing so may undermine the rationale for maintaining US presence and commitment.

In addition to that push-and-pull dynamic, there are doubts over the US’s willingness to use nuclear weapons to defend South Korea in a conflict situation. In an October 2022 article for The Diplomat, Seong-Chang Cheong notes that US and South Korean experts have doubts about whether the US would go for nuclear retaliation should North Korea attack the South with tactical nuclear weapons.

Cheong also notes that even if Washington and Seoul agree on nuclear sharing or stationing US nuclear weapons on the latter’s territory, the US President will still have the final say on launching a nuclear strike.

Asia Times has previously reported on North Korea’s determined effort to break the logic of extended deterrence by directly threatening nuclear strikes on the US mainland, which makes it even more unlikely that the US would launch a nuclear retaliation on North Korea on behalf of South Korea.

South Korea’s acquisition of an independent nuclear arsenal resolves many of these issues, though it will require some backtracking. South Korea signed the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1975. South Korea also has a 1991 Joint Declaration with North Korea wherein both sides agreed not to “test, manufacture, produce, receive, possess, store, deploy or use nuclear weapons.”

Obviously, North Korea has blatantly violated that agreement with six nuclear tests since 2006 while the so-called Six-Party Talks on its nuclear weapons program have terminally stalled. As South Korea is officially prohibited from having nuclear weapons, it has been developing conventional deterrents.Intercontinental ballistic missiles at a military parade celebrating the 70th founding anniversary of the Korean People’s Army in Pyongyang. North Korea’s nuclear arsenal is a key – but not the only – issue prodding South Korea to follow suit. Photo: KCNA 

In April 2022, Naval News reported South Korea’s successful submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) test from the submarine ROKS Dosan Ahn Changho. It involved two SLBMs based on the Hyunmoo-2B land-based ballistic missiles that traveled up to 400 kilometers before hitting a pre-designated area. However, an SLBM may be too expensive to be used with anything less than a nuclear warhead.

Asia Times has reported on South Korea’s plans to have nuclear ballistic missile submarines (SSBN), driven partly by North Korea’s efforts to build its undersea nuclear arsenal. However, it faces significant practical, logistical and technical challenges. As with SLBMs, SSBNs may be too costly to operate packing anything less than a nuclear punch.

All these advances point to South Korea’s aim to achieve nuclear latency, wherein it maintains the necessary technology to build a nuclear weapon quickly.

Israel’s Hard-line Government Facing Multifront Palestinian War, Revelation 11

Israel’s Hard-line Government Facing Multifront Palestinian War, Analysts Warn

Palestinians gather in front of national flags during a protest in solidarity with Palestinian prisoners on hunger strike in Israeli jails, on Nov. 22, 2021 in Gaza City. (Majdi Fathi/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

Sanaa Alswerky


Gaza and West Bank-based commentators say military groups are closely coordinating on an ‘unprecedented’ response to new Israeli policies on Jerusalem, prisoners and settlements

Israel could be facing a multifront conflict with united armed groups in the West Bank and Gaza Strip should its new hard-line government continue on the path of “provocation,” Palestinian analysts are warning.  

Palestinian writer Adnan Alsabbah, who is based in the West Bank city of Jenin, tells The Media Line that this situation can be attributed to the nature and composition of the Israeli government.

“We are facing a fascist, racist government par excellence, which boasts of this openly and publicly. The behavior, laws and decisions of this government against Palestinians clearly indicate that it is definitely going to war,” Alsabbah says. 

The new Israeli government, the most right-wing in the country’s history, was formed in December 2022 by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. Its hard-line cabinet members, the analysts say, have moved to implement a series of strictly anti-Palestinian policies and measures that increase the possibility of the entire region entering a more complicated and tense situation.

“They are corrupt, criminals, outlaws who have personal interests but want to be leaders,” Alsabbah says. “They use us [Palestinians] to cover their crimes and justify their presence in power. This government will drag all of us to the struggle square. In the coming days, they will continue to provoke us by repeatedly storming Al-Aqsa Mosque.”

Alsabbah is referring to a recent visit to the Jerusalem site by Israel’s new ultra-nationalist National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir. The mosque is located on the Temple Mount, known in Islam as Haram al-Sharif, a site holy to both Jews and Muslims and the scene of frequent clashes between Palestinians and Israeli security forces.

Israeli government minister Itamar Ben-Gvir makes a controversial visit to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem on January 3, 2023. (Twitter)

Palestinian military groups in Gaza have threatened to respond harshly and hold Israel responsible for all the consequences if it doesn’t “stop desecrating our religious sanctities and our Palestinian blood.”

“We are extremely outraged by this government’s criminal practices,” Abdellatif Alqanou, a spokesman for the Islamist Hamas movement that rules Gaza, tells The Media Line. “The occupation government must bear full responsibility if it continues its foolishness [as] the next explosion will be unprecedented.”

Alqanou calls on the international community to urgently intervene and “put pressure on Israel to back down from its plans targeting Al-Aqsa Mosque, the Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons and the Palestinian existence and identity.”

Ayman Rafati, a Palestinian journalist specializing in Israeli affairs, tells The Media Line that Israeli actions in Jerusalem present a red line for Palestinians. 

“In the light of this far-right government, the Palestinian resistance movements set clear red lines that can’t be crossed, most notably regarding occupied Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa Mosque.”

According to Rafati, continued Israeli attempts to change the current reality at the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the Judaization of the holy city, the increase of crimes against Palestinians in the West Bank, the expansion of illegal settlements and plans for West Bank annexation, the elimination of resistance in Jenin and Nablus, and the oppressive measures and policies against Palestinian prisoners are all key determinants that could inflame the entire region.

Assuming that Israel continues to move ahead with its policies, several scenarios involving Gaza would be on the table, Rafati says. 

“The [most unlikely] scenario is the possibility of going to a long[-term]  calm between Israel and the Palestinian resistance movements via reaching a prisoner exchange deal,” Rafati says, referring to a swap for two Israeli captives and the bodies of two Israeli soldiers whom Israel says are currently being held in Gaza by Hamas. 

“The other and most likely scenario is heading into a military confrontation, or maybe several, between the two sides who have already started to prepare for this moment,” he says.

Palestinians clash with IDF troops during a protest in the West Bank city of Jenin, Sept. 28, 2022 (Photo by Nedal Eshtayah/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)

Israeli media outlets have indicated that the Israel Defense Forces is conducting intensive military exercises on land, sea and air to deal with a future reaction in Gaza, particularly as the IDF expects border incursions from the Strip via sea or land.

Palestinian military movements are also gearing up to face the coming challenges, Rafati says. 

“We have witnessed a number of military drills in Gaza during the past period,” Rafati notes. “The latest was a significant military exercise carried out jointly by Palestinian military movements.” 

Nael Abuowdah, the Gaza-based political leader of the Palestinian Mujahideen Movement, tells The Media Line that this drill was “an important and national achievement of the Palestinian joint operation [bureau] that includes the majority of the Palestinian military groups.”

He says that the exercise took place close to the Gaza border with Israel, “to tell the Israeli occupation that our military system is now stronger, more developed, and ready for confrontation.”  

Abuowdah draws attention to the concept of an integrated Palestinian military operation.

“We are counting on the continuation of the resistance acts in the occupied West Bank, through the military formations that have emerged, starting with the Jenin brigade, the Lions’ Den and the Mujahideen Brigades. This is an integrated resistance project [across] the entire Palestinian geography.”

Rafati also believes that the Palestinian groups in both territories are beginning to coalesce after years of internecine hostility between Hamas in Gaza and its political rival Fatah, which is headed by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and controls the West Bank. 

“Despite all the Israeli attempts over the past years to separate Gaza and the West Bank, what we see today [in terms] of great connection and unity prove that this plan has completely failed. For instance, what happens in Jenin or Nablus is mostly followed by a response from Gaza.”

This means that several Palestinian fronts could explode at once, depending on the Israeli government’s attitude in the coming period, Rafati says.

“The West Bank, Gaza, Jerusalem, the 1948 occupied territories and maybe northern Palestine and southern Lebanon might be parts of the coming fight,” he suggests.

This raises a question about the level of coordination and communication between the Palestinian military groups.

Gaza-based political analyst Mustafa Alsawwaf does believe that groups in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are coordinating their activities. 

“The Palestinian resistance movement in Gaza is in full and continuous communication with the resistance brigades in the West Bank,” he says. “Actually, maybe part of what’s happening there now is upon the directions of the resistance movements here [in Gaza].” 

Alsawwaf predicts that the next confrontation could take place around summer, but ruled out the possibility of any external forces intervening in the future “unless it’s Palestinian.”

Nobody wins in nuclear Armageddon: Revelation 16

Nobody wins in nuclear Armageddon: Rafael Grossi’s plan to keep us safe in time of war

January 14, 2023

Listen: What keeps the world’s top nuclear watchdog up at night? It’s not only Vladimir Putin threatening to use a tactical nuke in Ukraine. On the GZERO World podcast, Rafael Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, joins Ian Bremmer to discuss the most imminent nuclear threats. He discusses his recent trip to an embattled Ukrainian nuclear power plant, the path forward for Iran after a scuttled deal, and how to keep North Korea in check, a rogue state amassing an entire arsenal of nukes.

Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they’re published.