Tag Archives: socialism

Jul 11 2020

Europe Exploding into Civil Unrest – The Start of Revolutionary Cycle – 2020


Armstrong Economics Blog/Civil Unrest

Re-Posted Jul 11, 2020 by Martin Armstrong

Politicians are about to be confronted with the harsh reality of their insane lockdowns in Europe. Germany now realizes there is building massive civil unrest and there is no doubt that this New Green World Order is out to end the car industry which is a major industry the will leave the workers without a future. The government is preparing for major civil unrest and out computer has been warning Europe is being pushed into civil war as tourism has been crushed.

Meanwhile, yesterday night demonstrators in Belgrade attacked the Serbian Parliament throwing stones and bottles at the windows of the parliament building. We are looking at serious civil unrest which can lead to revolution insofar as breaking up the EU as they push for this New Green World Order which will destroy the future of so many in Europe. Only elitists view that such a transition is no problem. They underestimate the economic damage and this is the END of perpetually borrowing with no intension of ever repaying any debt.

Jul 11 2020

Don’t Cry for Me America


Armstring Economics Blog/Economics

Re-Posted Jul 11, 2020 by Martin Armstrong
Jul 11 2020

On D Tube Angie Lee – Breakdown a must watch!


https://player.d.tube/btfs/QmQ7qADasqiREaz3DVNszrKB5EsTF75YZEPt7GnPyUiGyi

eyesopen2020

 

Published on Jul 8, 2020 
Nothing disrupts the system like an inquisitive mind. Most people are now so indoctrinated and brainwashed , to the point of complete and utter complete idiocy. I would rather be called a conspiracy theorist than a brainless, subservient sheep. Just think why no politician or billionaire got sick or died from this “ deadly” virus or, why no politician or billionaire lost their income ormhad their businesses looted. Unfortunately, those who really need to watch this clip will bypass…. Blessed are the poor in spirit I guess…  Jeremy Elliot breaks it down perfectly! IG/ @theiconicpodcast

Jul 11 2020

Action Alert: Goya Foods CEO Responds To Leftist Boycott After Remarks Praising President Trump…


Posted originally on The Conservative Tree house on July 10, 2020 by 

Yesterday during a White House Rose Garden event celebrating Hispanic business, Goya Foods President and CEO Bob Unanue praised President Trump for his commitment and economic action plan. Mr. Unanue previously appeared with President Obama at the White House; however, his remarks supporting President Trump drove the left-wing nuts bananas.

Immediately following Unanue’s remarks, the organized left-wing cancel culture machine starting demanding an immediate boycott of Goya Foods. Mr. Unanue responded to criticism earlier today.  He won’t back down from supporting President Trump.

.

The insufferable leftists will lose this battle. Goya is a well known shopping staple amid Latinos because the products are really good. Additionally, if the uber-left thinks Hispanics, writ large, are in line with their identity politics, they’re in for a surprise. Faith and family are at the core of the Latino culture.

ACTION ALERT: Let’s turn this nonsense effort by the radical leftists into a positive opportunity. Thousands of supportive Americans have already started purchasing Goya products. Additionally, purchasing Goya products for donations to local food pantries is yet another way to create a positive outcome against the left-wing professional hate machine. I’m in.

 

 

 

Jul 10 2020

There Is No Expiration Date on God-Given Rights!


Despot-like Government Shutdowns: Only One Threat to Religious Freedom

Dennis Jamison image

Re-Posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and Archives—July 9, 2020

There Is No Expiration Date on God-Given Rights!

This year’s Independence Day celebrations were tainted by the poisonous divisiveness of political posturing since it is an election year. But, 2020 is unlike any other election year—it represents a turning point in the history of the United States of America. What exists at the heart of all of the nasty division, which may not be easily seen with all of the anarchists and Antifa and Black Lives Matter rioting across the country, is the core of the battle for the soul of America.

It is likely that America’s legacy further into the 21st century, and possibly its future survival, will be decided from the outcome of this election. That is not an exaggeration. Already anarchists and Marxists are attempting to abort history through tearing down the statues of historical figures. Yet, tearing down the statues represents “symbolic” actions aimed at much bigger targets. Such targeted statues were not only national heroes—heroes of the ending of slavery, heroes who fought to preserve the Union, but also religious symbols—such as tearing down statues of white Jesus, as commentator and BLM advocate Shaun King demanded in June:

Antifa, a totally militant Marxist organization, Black Lives Matter terrorists really have two major targets. Symbols of religion—symbols of faith, religion itself. The other is the Constitution

“All murals and stained glass windows of white Jesus, and his European mother, and their white friends should also come down,” King wrote in a second tweet. “They are   a gross form of white supremacy.”

“Yes, I think the statues of the white European they claim is Jesus should also come down,” King wrote on Twitter. “They are a form of white supremacy. Always have been.” — Shaun King (@shaunking) June 22, 2020

So Antifa, a totally militant Marxist organization as James O’Keefe and Project Veritas have verified, and the Black Lives Matter terrorists really have two major targets. One of the targets is the symbols of religion—symbols of faith, and religion itself. The other is the Constitution as described in another of my recent articles. The root of such poison is in Marxist ideology that declares religion as the opiate of the people. Then, by logical extension, if religion is a false “crutch” for people, it must be removed because it harms a Marxist society. Like Nazis, who convinced the German people through sophisticated propaganda that mentally ill people were a drain upon Germany, communist ideology and committed Marxist leaders view religious people in a similar light.

An essential point for committed Socialist/Marxist/Communist leaders is that the concept of religious freedom is harmful to healthy socialist societies because faith represents a fallacious perception of reality. Marxism is basically a God-denying ideology. Its philosophical worldview is that God does not exist; thus, there is no real purpose for religion. If one denies God, Marxists concur that the concept of God-given rights is ridiculous. While condescension towards people of faith may exist within the secular-humanists, such condescension under Socialist governments, and especially under Communist regimes, morphs into legalized persecution and oppression of people of faith and religious groups. It is “systemic intolerance” of faith.

U.S.A. Hardcore Marxist leaders use anarchists and Brown Shirts and other assorted terrorists to manifest fear in the population and destabilize government

So, for all the people in the United States who think a Marxist revolution could not take place in the U.S., think again. Americans now witness a “sanitized,” made-for-television type of Marxist revolution on American soil. People could think it’s trending toward the 2020 version of “Hunger Games.” Did not the people in the inner cities fear for their lives as the rioters ravaged the streets? Do they not now fear the defunding of the only force that stands between a civil environment and anarchy, chaos, and lawlessness?

Let us ask two simple questions: What is the job of an anarchist? The purpose of most anarchists is to destroy civil stability and government institutions. What do terrorists do? The main purpose of most terrorists is to generate fear and panic within a governmental system in order to generate public confusion, distrust, and division. This is happening right now in the U.S.A. Hardcore Marxist leaders use anarchists and Brown Shirts and other assorted terrorists to manifest fear in the population and destabilize government. Amazingly, some government institutions are already under the influence or control of Socialists and Communists.

This is America 2020. The Brown Shirts have been unleashed upon city streets. A “sanitized” version of a Marxist revolution is under way. It has little to do with an illusion of “systemic racism.” It is about exercising a physical, militant presence to show relative power or political strength. Anarchists and terrorists do what they do according to their purpose unless they are arrested, hindered, or stopped in one way or another. But, what would stop this militant reality show short of physical confrontation or armed combat?

What would stop this “sanitized” Marxist revolution designed to generate widespread public support while destroying the country? Number one: A police presence that is dedicated to protecting all the citizens’ lives is capable of checking unbridled, unlawful activities Americans witness now. And, what are the Antifa and BLM demands? Defund the police? Yes. What are Socialists and Communists embedded in governments calling for? Defund the police? Yes, of course. Defund the police! Does common sense tell intelligent people that this type of solution would ensure the protection of the citizens?

The power of faith is a threat to Marxists; it goes a long way in dismantling the politics of fear

What would stop or hinder actions to promote fear and panic? Number two: A revival   of faith in America would penetrate the efforts at provoking divisiveness and terror in the population. What are secular-humanist government officials continuing to dismantle? In “COVID-plagued” America, they are closing churches, hindering attendance at faith-based worship services. Those intolerant of faith even initiate mandated penalties, fines, even arrests for people who openly profess their faith. Yet, how much genuine effort was made to arrest Antifa and BLM rioters? Or, if such terrorists were arrested, how long did they actually stay in jail? The power of faith is a threat to Marxists; it goes a long way in dismantling the politics of fear.

Let us ask a few more questions: Why have there been so many court cases against religious people in recent years? Why have so many people of faith had to go into the secular court system to fight for their God-given rights? If the U.S. government was established to secure the people’s God-given rights, why is there any fight in the first place? Who are the elected officials that are holding on to the self-evident truths today?

Secular humanists, God-denying atheists, and many lost souls truly cannot believe in the fundamental premises of the Declaration of Independence

Secular humanists, God-denying atheists, and many lost souls truly cannot believe in the fundamental premises of the Declaration of Independence if they do not believe in God. So, for such people who are already in positions of power with state and federal government agencies, where does that leave an adherence to the Declaration? Where does that leave citizens’ God-given rights?—Or the willingness to protect such freedom under the Bill of Rights? It would seem that if the God-given rights of the Founders are no longer tolerated in America, all of the other freedoms that are linked to this self-evident truth, would no longer retain significant authority. All other freedoms   hinge on religious freedom.

Yet, there was no expiration date for those God-given, inalienable rights. Inalienable means inseparable from such rights. America just wItnessed representatives of the taxpayers of Seattle “coming to their senses” and realizing they had allowed a criminal element to jeopardize citizens’ God-given rights. Those public figures reversed their thinking and returned dominion to a free people. This action is even more symbolic than the tearing down of statues. It should be an example for all Americans. Citizens who love America need to reaffirm their hold on self-evident truths. God-given rights still exist; they are still protected; and we all need to proclaim we will not let go of these rights that God gave to His children.

Jul 10 2020

The Nature of Freedom


Ensure that we understand the fundamental difference between the two definitions of freedom

Ron Lipsman image

Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House By  —— Bio and Archives—July 9, 2020

The Nature of Freedom

The title suggests that there might be something ambiguous about the definition of freedom. Well according to our old friends Merriam and Webster, it is “the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.” Sounds about right to me. The freedoms enjoyed by all Americans are – according to our Declaration of Independence – natural rights, inherent to us as human beings, granted to us by Nature or God, and not by the Government, but secured for us by the Government. I’ve emphasized the word to for a reason that will be clear momentarily.

OK what are those rights that I have, my possession of which is characterized by the absence of necessity, coercion or constraint? These are spelled out generally in the Declaration, more specifically in the Constitution – including the Bill of Rights – and in the constitutionally permissible laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. There is no secret here; they include:

Freedom: Absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action

  • the right to reside where I choose
  • the right to pursue the vocation I choose
  • the right to marry, and more generally associate with, whomever I choose
  • the right to worship as I wish
  • the right to petition the Government
  • the right to peacefully assemble
  • the right to state my opinion
  • the right to a trial by a jury of my peers if accused of a crime.

There are more of course, but note the common word to. That is not surprising since Webster specifies that a freedom entails a choice or an action – that is, things I choose to do or act upon – which choice or action is free from necessity, coercion or constraint. And so it has been understood – from the time of the American Revolution.

But beginning in the late 1890s, catching fire in the 1910s, and reigniting strongly in the 1930s, 1960s and 2010s, a substantial minority – and increasingly, looking like a majority – of the American people have settled on an alternate definition of the word freedom. If I may be permitted the liberty, I would state the new definition as follows: “the presence of security, comfort or guarantees in state or being.”

Now let us follow on this new definition with an exact parallel to the discussion above following the classic definition. First, the folks who propound the new definition rarely, explicitly discuss the origin or fount for these rights which are to be accorded to all residents of the USA. They – like Mr. Jefferson – hold them to be self-evident; but they scarcely specify their author, originator, source or justification. Self-evidence seems to be enough – although, alas, what is evident to you may be opaque to me.

Presidential founders of progressivism: Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson and Obama

Well, what are these rights that I should have that will guarantee my well-being by rendering my state more comfortable and secure? They have been spelled out by the presidential founders of progressivism: Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson and Obama. They include:

  • freedom from want (i.e., poverty)
  • freedom from fear (i.e., anything that makes me afraid); e.g.
  • freedom from expression of opinions that make me uncomfortable
  • freedom from prejudice
  • freedom from unfair competition (esp. from those more skilled or experienced than me)
  • freedom from violence (e.g., presence of guns)
  • freedom from superstition (i.e., religion)
  • freedom from incarceration
  • freedom from armed government agents (the police, ICE, etc.)
  • freedom from xenophobia (e.g., about undocumented immigrants).

Note now that the common word is from rather than to. That is because these freedoms do not pertain to an action or choice, but to a feeling or emotion or an external force on one’s person. As with ‘freedom to,’ there are more than those delineated above, e.g., freedom from illness or freedom from ignorance. And as with the first set of freedoms, these new freedoms are to be secured or guaranteed by the Government. But unlike the first set of freedoms, these are not granted or accorded to us by Nature or God; they are not natural rights in that sense. They are simply rights that just ought to be accorded to all individuals – or more precisely – to all groups living in an advanced society.

By whose authority? By the people themselves since the rights are self-evidently manifest to any enlightened member of society. Moreover, unlike the natural rights in the Founders’ society, the rights in the modern, enlightened society may evolve and change over time. New rights may be discovered; old rights may be discarded. Finally, the people, via their primary vehicle, the Government, determine what the current set of rights are, and then enforce them also via the Government. Thus, a “Living Constitution!” Which of course implies: Obsolescence of the Declaration and Abrogation of the Constitution.

It’s not my purpose here to compare the relative merits of the two systems. Rather it is to ensure that we understand the fundamental difference between the two definitions of freedom, and to allow the reader to ponder the drastic and overwhelming changes that would ensue if we the people discard the first definition and adopt the second. I will examine some of those changes in a future piece.

Jul 10 2020

Risk Seems to be Everywhere


Armstrong Economics Blog/ECM

Re-Posted Jul 10, 2020 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Dear Martin,

Thank you for your commitment to helping others through this unsettling time.

Long before I found you, I was fascinated with the capital markets and historical financial crashes, in particular. I spent many years on Wall Street (and LaSalle ST) building and marketing trading systems for the listed options industry.

Through the numerous currency failures, be they inflationary or deflationary, running to private assets has been a lifesaver for some clever enough to figure it out or those lucky to be serendipitously well positioned. Yet, it is always about timing. That is the subject of this question.

If the value of a currency is based on the productive power of the people behind the currency, it makes sense that Socrates is pointing to private assets going forward. It seems to me that the very best private assets would be businesses that enjoy productive power (not so easy to predict/choose in this environment). Whether we are denominating in dollars, rice, or seashells, it seems that a solid business will crank out currency units in whatever form and be a good hedge.

Hugo Stinnes emerged after WWI as an industrialist. Controlling coal, steel, electricity, and other fundamental businesses, he was able to profit as the currency collapsed. Stinnes continued this work straight through the introduction of the Rentenmark and Reichsmark seemingly not skipping a beat. He possessed productive power but was also very politically connected, which is key to this question. Later, The Third Reich was notorious for shutting down or nationalizing businesses. We look to be headed in that direction.

For those accumulating profits in, for example, mining stocks during the commodity boom, or wheat contracts, or equities, the question is, how do we get out of those trades? What is the risk that we sell/trade at the right time only to have our assets seized? For example, do you foresee a day, here in the U.S., whereby the government liquidates a portion of an account’s common shares for a bail-in or wealth tax? If so, then illiquid private placements (productive real estate or businesses with durable Free Cash Flow) that are very hard to value (and liquidate) might be the only real safe haven.

The risk seems to be everywhere. The risk most concerning and most difficult to predict or quantify is Government Risk – even here in the U.S. I can understand why the very wealthy buy paintings and rare items. Such items represent a real possibility to function as a “time machine” to bridge this insanity.

I would love to hear your thoughts. Above all, Socrates is a lifesaver and I am humbled to have access.

With respect,
JC

Texas

ANSWER: Yes, I knew a client who bought up all the old coins for scrap metal. Then it turned out there was a shortage of metal so the old coins were deemed valid at a new exchange rate. He made a fortune. There are definitely commodities that will preserve wealth in times like this. We must be careful about the Socialists, for they will do the same as the Nazis and nationalize just confiscating assets.

I believe the best shot we have is Socrates — let it monitor the subtle shifts. The one thing you can count on is the greed of those in power. Just as I began to see the subtle shifts with the Repo Crisis last August 2019, thereafter the markets were showing something was not right. I stood up at the WEC in Orlando and warned that something was seriously wrong and that the market would undergo a serious correction with the turn in the ECM.

Historically, Socrates seems to pick up things we humans do not see because they are subtle. It is like playing chess. You have to come up with a strategy and play in your mind the next several moves. You will lose if you simply react on a one move at a time basis. This is what Socrates is doing. It is playing out strategies. It looks for the possible paths and then monitors the movements across the entire globe to determine the eventual path. This is why NOBODY can forecast the future with 100% accuracy. We cannot as humans see all the possibilities. Socrates is mapping out the future and it reveals the most likely path and course of action.

Things can change and we get cycle inversions. But it is always playing one region against another. This is why all of these pundits fail because they focus typically just domestically and never see the trends coming from external factors. Things are so bad in Europe and the politicians are deliberately blocking travel from the USA to Europe in an effort to overthrow Trump to further their New Green World Order. In the process, before year-end, they will bankrupt at least 20% of all small businesses and wipe out the tourist trade for Southern Europe. These morons think they can placate the public with minimal subsistence from Guaranteed Basic Income they are beginning in Spain.

They will NOT be able to defeat the Monetary Crisis Cycle no matter what schemes they come up with. This is totally insane. Nevertheless, we will be monitoring what markets we need to exit in advance to try to preserve assets. This is a game of survival of the fittest. We do not have to run around naked on some island eating bugs. But we may have to take precautions and move to safe havens outside of urban cities for sure.

Jul 10 2020

The 2020 Election & Supreme Court Ruling


Armstrong Economics Blog/Politics

Re-Posted Jul 10, 2020 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: What does the new Supreme Court decision on the electoral college really mean? Does this prevent Hillary from becoming the candidate?

HF

ANSWER: It means that the delegates must vote for the popular vote in their state, based only on the national election. Nevertheless, this does not address what if Joe Biden were to slip and fall or somehow become mentally disabled after the primary elections yet before the Democratic Convention. This is the electoral college that only comes into play with the actual national election and does NOT involve the primaries.

This also does not disturb the fact that, should there be a tie in the Electoral College, this is what is called a “contingent election” where the election of the president then goes to the House of Representatives. Each state delegation casts one vote for one of the top three contenders to determine a winner. This took place only twice so far in history during the election of 1800 and 1824.

 

Jul 9 2020

Ghislaine Spins The Wheel of Death


Ghislaine will “never” be allowed to “Tell” us who she and Epstein had as Customers in their pedophile club.

Joe Biden has a problem and it’s not just his dementia. Ghislaine Maxwell could spill the beans on a great many Democrats as well as on a legion of left-leaning celebrities who support Joe. More scuffing added to Joe’s already tarnished image won’t help his presidential chances. Joe has long been seen as a pedophile that likes to grope children in public. One would think Joe would be aware of this negative public perception and refrain from such pawing, but he just can’t help himself and that’s a very bad sign.

Joe may look a little like the retired game show host Bob Barker, but he lacks Bob’s grace, character, and quick wit. Joe Biden is a disaster on wheels and Maxwell’s testimony will only make him look worse. Joe is the pick of the powerful elite, so Ghislaine (pronounced Gee-lane with a hard g) has to be worried. We all know what happened to her best friend Jeffrey Epstein. The elite running the world still don’t want to risk outright exposure. Even though many of us already know they are satanic fiends and pedophiles, they won’t hesitate to snuff people out to keep their kabuki theaters and Potemkin Villages moving along. Remember Epstein’s multi-millionaire pal Steve Bing? Some of Bing’s friends urged him to tell the world what he knew about Epstein and the pedophile ring. He ended up getting tossed from his high-rise luxury apartment. The elite-owned mass media dutifully called it a “suicide.” Yeah. Sure.

As I’ve mentioned before, sociopaths such as Epstein and Maxwell don’t kill themselves because they feel no guilt. In their minds they’ve done nothing wrong and they love themselves too much to commit suicide. However, their powerful overlords are even more sociopathic and won’t hesitate to pull the plug. Again.

Big wheels keep on turning.

—Ben Garrison

Jul 9 2020

Latest Progressive Anti-Israel Campaign in Congress


The false “annexation” narrative is being weaponized by Israel’s enemies in the United States and abroad

Joseph A. Klein, CFP United Nations Columnist image

Re–posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and Archives—July 8, 2020

Latest Progressive Anti-Israel Campaign in Congress

With the wind at her back following her recent primary victory, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) is taking the lead in challenging Israel’s possible extension of sovereignty over certain areas within the West Bank. She authored a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warning that any move by Israel to extend its sovereignty into such areas would jeopardize continued U.S. military aid to the Jewish state. Senator Bernie Sanders signed AOC’s letter along with 11 other Democrat House members, including AOC’s fellow “Squad” members Reps. Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Ayanna Pressley. Anti-Semitic organizations that back the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement (BDS) against Israel are also in AOC’s corner.

AOC’s reckless restrictions

“Should the Israeli government continue down this path,” AOC’s letter warns, “we will work to ensure non-recognition of annexed territories as well as pursue legislation that conditions the $3.8 billion in U.S. military funding to Israel to ensure that U.S. taxpayers are not supporting annexation in any way. We will include human rights conditions and the withholding of funds for the offshore procurement of Israeli weapons equal to or exceeding the amount the Israeli government spends annually to fund settlements, as well as the policies and practices that sustain and enable them.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has not taken a public position one way or the other on whether she would back legislation advancing AOC’s threat to cut off U.S. military aid to Israel. In any case, if legislation containing AOC’s reckless restrictions were to somehow reach President Trump’s desk, he would surely veto it. However, if Joe Biden is elected this November to replace President Trump and the Democrats end up controlling both the House and Senate, the legislation may well gain momentum and have a much better chance of passage. Biden will then likely sign it.

AOC asserts in her letter that “Israeli annexation of the West Bank is a clear violation of international law.” She added, “Annexation is prohibited by and is a prohibited act of aggression under Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, of which Israel is a party.”

The United Nations and most of its member states, including Western European countries, agree with AOC’s simplistic assertions. But just declaring that an action violates “international law” does not make it so, no matter how many times the assertion is repeated. Even the word “annexation,” when used to describe what Israel may decide to do after further internal discussions, is misplaced. The outgoing Israeli Ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, has used the more accurate phrase “applying sovereignty” to territory where the Jewish people have historical legal claims of their own that are superior to the Palestinians. The West Bank (or Judea and Samaria as Israelis prefer to refer to this territory) does not belong legally to the Palestinians and never has.

PLO declared that the “avowed aim of the organization was to blot out the State of Israel”

International treaties preceding the formation of the UN are still recognized by the UN Charter. This included the 1920 San Remo Conference, which assigned the Mandate for Palestine to the British following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. This Mandate included what is now known as the West Bank within a future homeland envisioned for the Jewish people. This means, as the outgoing Israeli UN Ambassador Danon observed, “the cause for a Jewish state became part of international law,” which carried over to the United Nations. The Palestinian leadership and their enablers reject these historical underpinnings of Israel’s claims, not to mention the Jewish people’s ancient roots in the holy land of Israel.

Even if, for the sake of argument, we were to look past all this history, the so-called “Arab Higher Committee” forfeited, on the Palestinians’ behalf, the immediate legal recognition of a new independent Arab state for the Palestinians when the Committee rejected the allocation of partitioned land for such new state under the UN General Assembly’s November 1947 Resolution 181. The Palestinian leadership chose instead to join the armies of their neighboring Arab states in an aggressive war to destroy the newly independent Jewish State of Israel that had been established in compliance with Resolution 181. That war ended in an armistice, with Jordan illegally seizing the West Bank during the 1948-49 war, which it occupied illegally for 19 years.

Between 1948 and 1967, there was no attempt to establish an independent sovereign Palestinian state within the seized Jordanian-controlled territory. In fact, the 1964 National Covenant of the Palestine Liberation Organization stated the opposite: “This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area.” The PLO declared that the “avowed aim of the organization was to blot out the State of Israel.”

During the 1967 Six Day War, Jordan launched an aggressive attack on Israel. Israel defended itself, which it had the legal right to do under international law, including pursuant to Article 51 of the UN Charter. To help ensure its future defense against further acts of aggression, Israel took over control of Jordan’s illegally seized lands in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Palestinian terrorism against Israel existed prior to the beginning of Israeli control over the West Bank and Gaza in 1967

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter states that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”  (emphasis added) Jordan violated Article 2(4) with its illegal seizure and occupation of the West Bank and its attack, 19 years later, upon pre-June 1967 Israel. The collection of Palestinian people living in the West Bank and Gaza did not constitute a legally recognizable “state” in 1967. Persons of Palestinian origin were granted Jordanian citizenship after 1948, which remained the case until at least 1988. When Israel became the only sovereign UN member state in control of any lands in the West Bank after its victory against Jordanian aggression in 1967, Israel had not taken one iota of land belonging legally to any other independent sovereign state.

UN Security Council Resolution 242, which was adopted on November 22, 1967, remains in effect today. Resolution 242 contemplated negotiations amongst the parties to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the assistance of a UN Special Representative, based on the principle of “respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”

While Resolution 242 called for the withdrawal of “Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict,” it pointedly did not demand complete withdrawal from all such territories. Israel has demonstrated on repeated occasions its willingness to negotiate a genuine “peace for land” exchange with the Palestinians. However, Palestinian leaders have rejected successive offers of land for peace, including one in 2008 under which Israel would have withdrawn from virtually all of the West Bank and partitioned Jerusalem on a demographic basis.

Palestinian terrorism against Israel existed prior to the beginning of Israeli control over the West Bank and Gaza in 1967. Since 1967, the Palestinians have continued their acts of terrorism against Israelis living within the lines of pre-June 1967 Israel, aided and abetted by the Iranian regime. The number of cross-border operations reached almost 1,500 in 1968, before there were any extensive Israeli settlements, barriers or checkpoints. After Israel unilaterally withdrew its military personnel and Jewish settlers from Gaza in 2005 and gave the Palestinians a chance to create a completely self-governing entity of their own, Hamas ended up taking control. The terrorists used Gaza as their launching pad for rocket attacks and other terrorist assaults against civilians living inside Israel. Palestinian terrorists also snuck into Israeli cities from the West Bank, conducting suicide bombings, vehicular attacks, shootings and knifings.

The false “annexation” narrative is being weaponized by Israel’s enemies in the United States and abroad

Thus, Israel is fully justified in believing that its “right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force,” as promised by Resolution 242, would be impossible to realize if it were to revert to the pre-June 1967 lines. The Palestinians’ continued refusal to engage in direct negotiations over the final disposition of border issues leaves Israel no choice but to consider applying formal sovereignty over areas within the West Bank it considers necessary for its defense and to protect Jewish residents living in those areas.

Subsequent UN General Assembly and Security Council resolutions purported to impose upon Israel a so-called internationally recognized “border” with an independent Palestinian state based on the pre-June 1967 lines (unless the Palestinians voluntarily agree to make any adjustments). The resolutions also purported to declare East Jerusalem (including Jewish holy sites in the Old City) as the capital of the Palestinian state. The West Bank is not one of the UN-administered trusteeship territories. Nothing in the UN Charter, established international law, or the foundational Security Council Resolution 242 provide any legal authority for such arbitrary drawing of borders by unaccountable UN bodies.

“With history and international law on its side, and given the Palestinians continued unwillingness to negotiate with and recognize Israel as a Jewish state,” outgoing Israeli UN Ambassador Danon declared, “Israel’s government will begin the internal discussion of how to apply sovereignty to our most ancient lands in Judea and Samaria. Those who decry it as ‘annexation’ are doing nothing more than appeasing the Palestinian narrative and making peace ever more elusive. This puts them, to use their words, on the wrong side of history.”

The false “annexation” narrative is being weaponized by Israel’s enemies in the United States and abroad. But Ambassador Danon has indicated that Israel will not yield to outside threats regarding its sovereignty decisions. We can only hope that the traditional bipartisan support for Israel in Congress will not significantly erode, even as friends of Israel such as long-time Congressman Eliot Engel lose to anti-Israel progressives and AOC exerts greater influence as a result.