Everyone should be watching developments in Israel

[The Righterzpen]

Now here's an excerpt from one of the chapters of one of my Bible studies about politics and wars in the middle east:

(Part #1)

1967 to 1973 :

In 1973 a war had broken out between Israel, Egypt and Syria. On the surface, Egypt had gone in and taken the Suez Canal while Syria invaded the Golan Heights. In the end Israel defeated both Egypt and Syria with the help of the U.S. That's the simple narrative. The more we scratch beneath the surface though, we find nothing is that simple.

So here we go, follow me down this rabbit hole (beware - it gets deep):

To understand this, first we have to understand a little bit of history of what went on 6 years prior in 1967, and to understand that, we actually have to go back to the 1950's. Now if we do some digging here, we will find through declassified information recently made public on the web; (some of which was released by order of President Donald Trump) that we will smack up against the "deep state" and the behind-the-scenes workings of the beast(s) system. All these events are verifiable with just a little bit of Internet research.

There is currently a phenomenon going around the web called "Q" (and the anons) whereas allegedly someone(s) high up in the Trump administration are posting / explaining and connecting certain events and declassified information to explain to the patriot / nationalists movements in the U.S. and abroad, what's in the works to try and take down the "deep state". The information posted is interesting and a good deal of it points out and attempts to explain the connections between real events, declassified aspects of certain programs and entities like the mainstream media, the pharmaceutical industry and the gun control lobby. For anyone who's familiar with this phenomenon, (or has researched "conspiracy theories") what you're about to read is not going to sound bizarre at all. More on "Q" at the end of this chapter.

So let's jump into this: France-1954

Back at the end of WWII, all European powers, with the exception of France relinquished their colonial empires. Great Britain was bankrupt, Germany was destroyed, the Soviet Union was on life support, the United States and Canada where basically the only two nations in the world who still had an infrastructure and functional economies; and the U.S. was the only nation with a nuclear bomb. The end of the war saw the scramble between the U.S. and the Soviets to scoop up as much German technology and as many scientists as possible. The U.S. got the better share of both, but the Soviet Union was still the next nation to obtain a nuclear bomb; (1949 - albite with help of people in FDR's administration actually). After the Soviets, Great Britain was the next nation to develop the bomb in 1952.

1954 was a very bad year for France. Their control of South East Asia collapsed. They pulled out of Vietnam in 1954 and the war for Algerian independence started that same year. France still had quite a few nations in East Africa and areas of Israel.

Gamal Abdul Nasser was elected president of Egypt in 1956 although in 1952 he'd headed a successful coup that ousted the British backed Egyptian royal family. 1955 drew up an agreement between Egypt, Britain, and the U.S. accompanied by a loan from the World Bank to build a dam over the Nile river at Aswan. Negotiations were put on hold at first to try and iron out a problem Egypt had with Sudan over sharing water and whether or not Sudan would elect to join Egypt? (Sudan was still a quasi British colony.) This was allegedly further complicated by a deal Nasser entered into with Czechoslovakia for weapons (manufactured by the Soviet Union), in juxtaposed to France arming Israel. (Nasser had also recognized communist China.) In the end though Nasser had agreed to all the bank's conditions and was ready to go forth with the U.S. / British deal, although the Soviet's too had put a construction deal of their own on the table.

All this strained the deal with the U.S. in the mind of then Secretary of State John Foster Dulles; but from the vanish-point of President Eisenhower and the World Bank, was not sufficient reason to halt negotiations. No one knows for sure why the U.S. secretary of state suddenly lost his patience with Nasser and withdrew the offer, but in 1956 the U.S. and Britain were suddenly out of the deal. Egypt took control of the Suez canal and told the world, we will charge fees to use this canal so we can build our dam. (The dam eventually was completed with help of the Soviets by 1971.)

Well this "invading the canal" "enraged" Israel, France and Britain, who'd already schemed up a plan to start a war. After this, Israel made a few failed attempts to cause problems for Egypt's administration of the canal; but all the other nations that used it, found no real reason to object to Egypt's managerial skills. Still the military forces of Britain and France were steaming toward Egypt, while Israel launched an attack on Sini.

At that point, Eisenhower blew his stack, threatened Britain and France with withdrawing their loans for rebuilding Europe and than took the issue to the U.N. by emergency resolution. Britain vetoed the resolution, but was countered by Yugoslavia's motion to send the issue to General Assembly. France objected to the U.S. resolution, but was countered by a Soviet resolution, which the French accepted; (never acknowledging that this was the very same resolution the U.S. had offered, just the Soviet's had edited out Eisenhower's anger at Britain and France).

The U.S. attempted to sooth over their allies hurt feelings, along with their slow and begrudging withdrawal; when the Soviets "saved the day" by threatening Britain, France and Israel with a nuclear attack, saying they were going to blow Israel off the face of the earth because it "wasn't really a country anyways".

All the nations involved knew the man who'd made the threat (Nikolai Bulganin) wasn't serious; as they'd previously collected intel that Russia didn't even have long range ICBM's and Bulganin had been working closely with the U.S. over nuclear weapons test ban treaties and putting limits on nuclear stock piles. He'd made the announcement public though, before the parties involved ever received their "written notices"; which had put a real scare on the civilian population, effectively putting and end to any want of public support for a war on the parts of the British or French people.

After things settled down, Israel continued to object to Egypt's control of the Suez and Egypt's response was: "Take it before the international court." Israel never filed any legal action against Egypt over the nationalization of the canal. They had filed a complaint in 1950 over Egyptian restrictions of ships passing through the canal headed to Israel, which was a result of shifts in control of the canal that were a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.

1948:

When the U.N. passed the resolution to form Israel, it was also to include a Palestinian state. But since the U.N. actually does not possess the authority to create nations, this resolution was simply a recommendation, not a law enacted. The stipulation did say though that if an Israeli state was to be created, than a Palestinian state was also to be mandated in that agreement. Yet that aspect of the resolution has never been honored by Israel. This started a war in 1948, when the Arab states stepped in to back the Palestinians. Egypt had instituted restrictions of ships entering the canal headed to Israel on suspicion of weapons smuggling.

When Israel complained to the U.N. in 1950 over Egypt's interference with Israel's use of the canal, the U.N. declared that because the original treaty for the Suez had now expired, this was not their jurisdiction (nor Britain's jurisdiction). (Although Egypt had gained independence from Britain in 1922 and the Suez was technically in Egypt, it was still being operated as an international body of water by a private French company.) Egypt's independence effectively ended 1888's stipulations drawn up in the Convention of Constantinople; which left control of the canal open to "whomever" after the British left. So after 1956, since the Suez Canal was technically in Egypt, it seemed logical for the U.N. to rule that it belongs to the Egyptians; (besides the fact that it was constructed using Egyptian labor and cement).

How Israel got Nukes:

So now Israel was mad at France for "losing" the 1956 war; (and France was mad at everyone else). So France, who had the technology to build themselves a nuclear bomb, but hadn't yet, "went rogue" on the rest of the world and began selling this technology to other nations. They sold it to Israel, India, and Pakistan; who intern sold it to Iran and allegedly North Korea. Israel launched it's nuclear program in 1956 with the help of French scientists, but continued to obtain more and better technology primarily from spying on the U.S.

 

[The Righterzpen]

(Part #2)

So this brings us to 1967 and the 6 Days War.

Let's go further down the rabbit hole. Here's where it gets even weirder. The key to really being able to figure out what exactly was going on, would be most easily answered if we knew exactly why a particular American ship (The USS Liberty) was attacked by Israel.

This war "opens up" with the Soviets getting wind of plans in the works for a staged war in the middle east. Remember Nikolai Bulganin? He was the equivalent of the vice-president for the Soviet Union in 56. He was the major arms treaty negotiator for the Soviets under Khrushchev. He negotiated many treaties and was highly respected as a levelheaded and fair man by the U.S. One of the limits he negotiated had to do with the use of outer space. Space could be used for peaceful exploration, satellites, GPS satellites, and even reconnaissance spying over a certain altitude; but no weapons were to be positioned in space. (Nations to date have upheld this treaty.)

Well apparently, either through spying or high altitude observation, the Soviets learned of Israel's nuclear program. They warned Egypt and Syria about it, as well as a plan they'd gotten wind of that Israel was going to start a war.

USS Liberty is the Key:

Now here is where the rabbit hole gets deep and has to do with the USS Liberty ship. Liberty was a spy ship. It had very advanced "ears" and decoding capacity. The 6 Days War had already started and the Liberty was in international waters, off the coast of Egypt, about 14 miles from Israel. Very clear day, mid afternoon, after being observed for several hours that morning, Israeli planes and a couple of torpedo boats came out and tried to sink the Liberty. They knew it was an American ship. There's record of Israeli pilots talking to their command posts, acknowledging that they know it's an American ship, some pilots questioning (and subsequently refusing) to follow their orders to sink this ship. The only reason they didn't "end up" sinking it in the end, was because a Soviet spy ship came on the scene and the Israelis knew they were being watched.

So, other than the Soviet spy ship, no other portion of the fleet knew this was going on, until one sailor from the Liberty duct taped some antennas together (during the first attack) and got an SOS out to the American 6th Fleet.

The 6th Fleet's, USS Saratoga was the first to receive the signal and launches jet fighters. (Jet fighters armed with nuclear weapons mind you. Jet fighters assumed by personnel of the 6th Fleet to be on their way to defend the USS Liberty. Decades later, declassified intelligence would tell us these fighters were actually being sent to drop their nukes on Ciro.) Within minutes they are contacted by U.S. Secretary of Defense, who orders the planes to return. The rear admiral who relays the message, tells the Saratoga to relaunch in 90 minutes. (Relaunch a rescue mission.) The Liberty is still under attack when the commander of the 6th Fleet sends the USS America and Saratoga, telling them to send planes to defend the Liberty. 6th Fleet commander radios that help is on the way, but the Liberty doesn't receive it.

Signet Command Center contacts the National Military Command Center in D.C. Liberty is hit with a 3rd round attacks. Commander of 6th Fleet launches 12 aircraft. By this time D.C. is on the phone ordering another recall. After arguing between the top brass of the 6th Fleet and the Secretary of Defense, President Johnson gets on the line and says he doesn't care if the ship sinks, he will not embarrass his allies.

?

The Liberty continues to transmit a distress signal, but there is no response. About 5 hours later, a Soviet guided missile destroyer sends a flashing light message in English "Do you need help".

The Liberty responds "No thank you."

The Soviet ship replies "I will stand by in case you need me."

The Soviet ship waits until the Navy destroyers Davis and Massey arrive to retrieve the Liberty's crew. The Liberty is towed back to port in Malta.

34 are dead, 174 are wounded, out of 294 sailors on that ship.

To date, there is no explanation given as to why the USS Liberty was attacked. The Israelis claim it was an accident. Any investigation / information about the attack coming from the top down is still classified.

So the questions begin?

What was the real purpose of the 6 Days War? Obviously from the declassified information we do have, we can put enough together to at least fill in some of the gaps. We know this was a planned war. We know the Soviets knew about it. We also know that a couple of years prior (1962) was the Cuban Missile Crisis. (Irrelevant side note here; my dad was in the Cuban Missile Crisis.) One of the things that came out of the Cuban Missile Crisis was that a direct telephone link was established between the White House and the Kremlin that's still in existence today. (1963) It's dubbed "the red phone"; although it's not red and to my knowledge, it isn't actually a direct phone link.

So, my speculation is that as soon as the Soviet spy ship shows up with the first wave of attacks on the USS Liberty, the captain radios to the Kremlin and tells them what's going on in this schemed war. (The Israelis are going to sink an American ship, blame it on the Egyptians, which gives America "justification" to bomb Ciro …. (with nuclear weapons?) Eh… Yeah!) At that point the Kremlin probably contacted D.C. and said "We know what's going on." and probably "If you nuke Egypt, we're gonna nuke you."

It was well understood by 1957 with the launch of Sputnik; that since the Soviets had rockets that were capable of launching satellites into space, they certainly had ICBM's that could hit the U.S.

So, advancing back to 1973 comes The Yom Kipper War (or rather - the Six Days War - round two)

Documents released by the Russians in 2012, explained that (again) this war was a result of Egypt, the US and Israel conspiring together to ultimately get rid of the Syrian army. (Although Israel drove the Syrian army back, they were not able to destroy it.)

This information was released in a memo compiled for the Soviet politburo by their ambassador to Egypt. How the Russian ambassador got wind of this so far in advance, is not explained in the memo, but apparently this memo (recently released) was not fake. We know this because historically speaking "in real time", the Soviet leadership did take measures to ensure the safety of their own citizens, as they evacuated their embassies before the Egyptians ever made their move. About a week before the war broke out, the Soviet ambassador to Egypt, along with the Soviet ambassador to the U.S. met with President Nixon in the White House and in no shorter terms warned him that they could "all wake up one day and find that there is a real conflagration". (A conflagration is an extensive fire that destroys a whole lot of land.)

The Soviets were obviously aware of this conspiracy against Syria (since there'd been a prior war of the same set up) and although they were animate in staying out of a war with the U.S., I don't know if they were looking to force the U.S.'s hand, or they were looking to mess with Israel a little bit? (Or maybe both.) The plan was that Egypt would invade the Suez Canal, which would "inspire" Syria to invade the Golan Heights. Egypt and Israel would sit in a stalemate, until the U.S. entered the war, than Egypt would pull back and blame their lack of success on inferior Soviet weapons, while the US and Israel would mop up Syria. This would allow Egypt's ruler to "save face" from the defeat in a prior war, (6 day war) and blame it on the Soviets. The U.S. would reestablish a stronger foothold in the middle east, and Israel was to get advanced weapons from the U.S.

So what actually happened?

Well the Soviets decided to equip the Egyptian army with the best weapons they had, wherewith the Egyptians proceeded to clobber the Israelis. When the Israelis retreated, the Egyptians just waited, saying to Syria that they were not going to go wandering all over Sini looking for Israelis when they'd eventually come back.

So the Israelis turned their attention toward Syria, which didn't exactly work out as planned either, since the more advance weapons they had arranged to obtain from the U.S. failed to be effective in the dry and dusty climate. (AK-47's on the other hand are remarkably simple, but well designed weapons and seem to love sand storms. American soldiers in Desert Storm were amazed that the Iraqi machine guns still fired, considering how old they were and the abrasive sandy environment. Our M-16's jammed all the time. AK-47's, (much craved by black market arms dealers) were actually designed to take a wide variety of ammunition and will fire under just about any circumstances.) (The U.S. had even more advanced weapons that they were unwilling to relinquish to Israel at that moment.) Then Israel pulled "the nuke card" and the U.S. started Operation Nickel Grass.

Operation Nickel Grass was much like the Berlin Airlift of 1948/49, except it didn't last as long. First thought was to use Israeli passenger planes, but they were too small. Next the State Department approached U.S. commercial airline companies, all of which refused, for fear of the possible economic consequences to them post war from the Arab states. So finally Nixon told the U.S. Air Force, "send anything that flies".

Word had gotten out though that the real reason for Nickel Grass was to try and head off another nuclear war. Again, it was probably a similar scenario to the Six Days War whereas not only Israel had threatened to use nukes, but that the Kremlin and D.C. were probably in communication with each other posing the same threats. All of that is played down in the mainstream narrative today, but I'm sure it is just one of many covert instances where the world was on the verge of nuclear destruction.

So Israel got arms restocks from Nickel Grass (and than some), and the U.S. and Soviets seemed to agree that stocking the nations of the Middle-East with "conventional" weapons was preferable to the stress of constant escalation to threat of nuclear war. As we'll see though from future conflicts (both "local" and "global") that found their battlefields in the Middle-East, all sides are "dirty" in these conflicts.

Global Economic Impact:

Obviously though, the "Yom Kipper War" was not without economic consequences to the U.S. and (to a lesser degree) the rest of the world, as it's "end" brought on the beginning of the OPEC oil embargo. Now this war wasn't the only factor in this, but it was the major one. Pressure was put on Israel to withdraw from Sini and the Golan Heights so that the Arab nations would lift the embargo; which they did in 1974.

Rolled up in all this tangled ball of string, the oil embargo caused the stock market to crash too, which was the first major stock market crash event since the depression. In 1971, the U.S. went off the gold standard, and the rest of the industrialized world also followed; "floating" their currencies and making the value of such dependent on the strength of their economies.

This is why the stock market today does wild things with the occurrence of global events, like hurricanes, earthquakes or political happenings like national elections. This is also why nations like Russia, China and the U.S. get into "economy wars" with each other. Certain nations and geographic areas have the "lion's share" of natural resources like oil, coal and natural gas, (The Middle-East, Russia, Canada) while others have manufacturing capacity (China, Japan, the U.S.) and still others are leaders in technology (Japan, South Korea, the U.S.). Of course the three biggest military spenders are the U.S., China and Russia; (4th comes Saudi Arabia) and all of this ties together in this global / beast / cabal system.

Subsequent Conflicts:

The next major war to break out between Israel and any of it's neighbors was the 1982 Lebanese war between Israel and the PLO (backed by Iran's Hezbollah). All subsequent conflicts (this one included) directly involving Israel have remained in this category ("local" conflict) and have not involved other nations as directly engaged in nationally declared wars.

As the Soviet Union was beginning to come unraveled by this decade, the next global conflict we see in the Middle-East is Desert Storm in 1991. And as mentioned in a previous paragraph, all sides are still "dirty" in these conflicts. Although Desert Storm did not see official "nuclear bombs", it did see the use of depleted uranium, as well as chemical and biological warfare. Of course the mainstream narrative denies any of this, but evidence can easily be found by simply looking up "Khamisiyah weapons dump" on YouTube.

Chemical and biological weapons were outlawed at the end of WWI. Of which the U.S., Britain, France, and Russia have all signed this treaty. When American marines went into the Khamisiyah munitions complex in Iraq though, they found chemical and biological weapons. (There is footage of this on YouTube.) So, guess where the Iraqis got them from? Primarily the U.S., but also Britain and France. (To my knowledge they found no Soviet chemical / biological weapons in that bunker complex.) Now why did the U.S. sell Saddam Hussain chemical and biological weapons? That goes back to the Iran / Iraq war; (1980-1987) but that is a whole other rabbit hole to save for another discussion.

So obviously bombing this munitions dump caused the release of these agents; of which did cause isolated pockets of mass death of (mostly Bedouins) in the Iraqi desert. American forces had come across areas and a village or two where everything was dead, including the insects.

I remember people talking about this back during the war. The transient military units and civilian contractors I worked with were suspicious that the stuff we were cleaning was "hot". One fellow did manage to scrounge up some chemical weapons kits and a gager counter. And yes, the kits did detect low level presence of agents; but we were all "reassured" that our detection equipment was faulty. "Ironically" though, it only started to "malfunction" after the air war commenced. We were told it was "the sand", yet 6 months of sitting out in the Saudi Arabian desert during Desert Shield and not one peep out of those chemical weapons detectors! Ehhh….. so they "malfunctioned"… all through the war? Yeah! (I got a munitions dump to sell you in Iraq!) It took 25 years before I was "service connected" for Gulf War Syndrome. I know I digress here and my war stories are probably better saved for another discussion; so back to the study.

The next major global conflict the Middle-East saw, came on the heals of 9/11 in which the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan were taken out. Next came Libya with "shake ups" in Egypt and most recently Saudi Arabia. Now of course most everyone knows there is a civil war going on in Syria. Yet "rumors" coming from a certain retired general Wesley Clark, has stated that the intent was to take out not just Iraq, Libya and Syria, but also Sudan, Somalia, Lebanon and Iran. According to the general, this was a "five year plan" of the deep state.

 

[JacksBratt]

(Part #2)

So this brings us to 1967 and the 6 Days War.

Let's go further down the rabbit hole. Here's where it gets even weirder. The key to really being able to figure out what exactly was going on, would be most easily answered if we knew exactly why a particular American ship (The USS Liberty) was attacked by Israel.

This war "opens up" with the Soviets getting wind of plans in the works for a staged war in the middle east. Remember Nikolai Bulganin? He was the equivalent of the vice-president for the Soviet Union in 56. He was the major arms treaty negotiator for the Soviets under Khrushchev. He negotiated many treaties and was highly respected as a levelheaded and fair man by the U.S. One of the limits he negotiated had to do with the use of outer space. Space could be used for peaceful exploration, satellites, GPS satellites, and even reconnaissance spying over a certain altitude; but no weapons were to be positioned in space. (Nations to date have upheld this treaty.)

Well apparently, either through spying or high altitude observation, the Soviets learned of Israel's nuclear program. They warned Egypt and Syria about it, as well as a plan they'd gotten wind of that Israel was going to start a war.

USS Liberty is the Key:

Now here is where the rabbit hole gets deep and has to do with the USS Liberty ship. Liberty was a spy ship. It had very advanced "ears" and decoding capacity. The 6 Days War had already started and the Liberty was in international waters, off the coast of Egypt, about 14 miles from Israel. Very clear day, mid afternoon, after being observed for several hours that morning, Israeli planes and a couple of torpedo boats came out and tried to sink the Liberty. They knew it was an American ship. There's record of Israeli pilots talking to their command posts, acknowledging that they know it's an American ship, some pilots questioning (and subsequently refusing) to follow their orders to sink this ship. The only reason they didn't "end up" sinking it in the end, was because a Soviet spy ship came on the scene and the Israelis knew they were being watched.

So, other than the Soviet spy ship, no other portion of the fleet knew this was going on, until one sailor from the Liberty duct taped some antennas together (during the first attack) and got an SOS out to the American 6th Fleet.

The 6th Fleet's, USS Saratoga was the first to receive the signal and launches jet fighters. (Jet fighters armed with nuclear weapons mind you. Jet fighters assumed by personnel of the 6th Fleet to be on their way to defend the USS Liberty. Decades later, declassified intelligence would tell us these fighters were actually being sent to drop their nukes on Ciro.) Within minutes they are contacted by U.S. Secretary of Defense, who orders the planes to return. The rear admiral who relays the message, tells the Saratoga to relaunch in 90 minutes. (Relaunch a rescue mission.) The Liberty is still under attack when the commander of the 6th Fleet sends the USS America and Saratoga, telling them to send planes to defend the Liberty. 6th Fleet commander radios that help is on the way, but the Liberty doesn't receive it.

Signet Command Center contacts the National Military Command Center in D.C. Liberty is hit with a 3rd round attacks. Commander of 6th Fleet launches 12 aircraft. By this time D.C. is on the phone ordering another recall. After arguing between the top brass of the 6th Fleet and the Secretary of Defense, President Johnson gets on the line and says he doesn't care if the ship sinks, he will not embarrass his allies.

?

The Liberty continues to transmit a distress signal, but there is no response. About 5 hours later, a Soviet guided missile destroyer sends a flashing light message in English "Do you need help".

The Liberty responds "No thank you."

The Soviet ship replies "I will stand by in case you need me."

The Soviet ship waits until the Navy destroyers Davis and Massey arrive to retrieve the Liberty's crew. The Liberty is towed back to port in Malta.

34 are dead, 174 are wounded, out of 294 sailors on that ship.

To date, there is no explanation given as to why the USS Liberty was attacked. The Israelis claim it was an accident. Any investigation / information about the attack coming from the top down is still classified.

So the questions begin?

What was the real purpose of the 6 Days War? Obviously from the declassified information we do have, we can put enough together to at least fill in some of the gaps. We know this was a planned war. We know the Soviets knew about it. We also know that a couple of years prior (1962) was the Cuban Missile Crisis. (Irrelevant side note here; my dad was in the Cuban Missile Crisis.) One of the things that came out of the Cuban Missile Crisis was that a direct telephone link was established between the White House and the Kremlin that's still in existence today. (1963) It's dubbed "the red phone"; although it's not red and to my knowledge, it isn't actually a direct phone link.

So, my speculation is that as soon as the Soviet spy ship shows up with the first wave of attacks on the USS Liberty, the captain radios to the Kremlin and tells them what's going on in this schemed war. (The Israelis are going to sink an American ship, blame it on the Egyptians, which gives America "justification" to bomb Ciro …. (with nuclear weapons?) Eh… Yeah!) At that point the Kremlin probably contacted D.C. and said "We know what's going on." and probably "If you nuke Egypt, we're gonna nuke you."

It was well understood by 1957 with the launch of Sputnik; that since the Soviets had rockets that were capable of launching satellites into space, they certainly had ICBM's that could hit the U.S.

So, advancing back to 1973 comes The Yom Kipper War (or rather - the Six Days War - round two)

Documents released by the Russians in 2012, explained that (again) this war was a result of Egypt, the US and Israel conspiring together to ultimately get rid of the Syrian army. (Although Israel drove the Syrian army back, they were not able to destroy it.)

This information was released in a memo compiled for the Soviet politburo by their ambassador to Egypt. How the Russian ambassador got wind of this so far in advance, is not explained in the memo, but apparently this memo (recently released) was not fake. We know this because historically speaking "in real time", the Soviet leadership did take measures to ensure the safety of their own citizens, as they evacuated their embassies before the Egyptians ever made their move. About a week before the war broke out, the Soviet ambassador to Egypt, along with the Soviet ambassador to the U.S. met with President Nixon in the White House and in no shorter terms warned him that they could "all wake up one day and find that there is a real conflagration". (A conflagration is an extensive fire that destroys a whole lot of land.)

The Soviets were obviously aware of this conspiracy against Syria (since there'd been a prior war of the same set up) and although they were animate in staying out of a war with the U.S., I don't know if they were looking to force the U.S.'s hand, or they were looking to mess with Israel a little bit? (Or maybe both.) The plan was that Egypt would invade the Suez Canal, which would "inspire" Syria to invade the Golan Heights. Egypt and Israel would sit in a stalemate, until the U.S. entered the war, than Egypt would pull back and blame their lack of success on inferior Soviet weapons, while the US and Israel would mop up Syria. This would allow Egypt's ruler to "save face" from the defeat in a prior war, (6 day war) and blame it on the Soviets. The U.S. would reestablish a stronger foothold in the middle east, and Israel was to get advanced weapons from the U.S.

So what actually happened?

Well the Soviets decided to equip the Egyptian army with the best weapons they had, wherewith the Egyptians proceeded to clobber the Israelis. When the Israelis retreated, the Egyptians just waited, saying to Syria that they were not going to go wandering all over Sini looking for Israelis when they'd eventually come back.

So the Israelis turned their attention toward Syria, which didn't exactly work out as planned either, since the more advance weapons they had arranged to obtain from the U.S. failed to be effective in the dry and dusty climate. (AK-47's on the other hand are remarkably simple, but well designed weapons and seem to love sand storms. American soldiers in Desert Storm were amazed that the Iraqi machine guns still fired, considering how old they were and the abrasive sandy environment. Our M-16's jammed all the time. AK-47's, (much craved by black market arms dealers) were actually designed to take a wide variety of ammunition and will fire under just about any circumstances.) (The U.S. had even more advanced weapons that they were unwilling to relinquish to Israel at that moment.) Then Israel pulled "the nuke card" and the U.S. started Operation Nickel Grass.

Operation Nickel Grass was much like the Berlin Airlift of 1948/49, except it didn't last as long. First thought was to use Israeli passenger planes, but they were too small. Next the State Department approached U.S. commercial airline companies, all of which refused, for fear of the possible economic consequences to them post war from the Arab states. So finally Nixon told the U.S. Air Force, "send anything that flies".

Word had gotten out though that the real reason for Nickel Grass was to try and head off another nuclear war. Again, it was probably a similar scenario to the Six Days War whereas not only Israel had threatened to use nukes, but that the Kremlin and D.C. were probably in communication with each other posing the same threats. All of that is played down in the mainstream narrative today, but I'm sure it is just one of many covert instances where the world was on the verge of nuclear destruction.

So Israel got arms restocks from Nickel Grass (and than some), and the U.S. and Soviets seemed to agree that stocking the nations of the Middle-East with "conventional" weapons was preferable to the stress of constant escalation to threat of nuclear war. As we'll see though from future conflicts (both "local" and "global") that found their battlefields in the Middle-East, all sides are "dirty" in these conflicts.

Global Economic Impact:

Obviously though, the "Yom Kipper War" was not without economic consequences to the U.S. and (to a lesser degree) the rest of the world, as it's "end" brought on the beginning of the OPEC oil embargo. Now this war wasn't the only factor in this, but it was the major one. Pressure was put on Israel to withdraw from Sini and the Golan Heights so that the Arab nations would lift the embargo; which they did in 1974.

Rolled up in all this tangled ball of string, the oil embargo caused the stock market to crash too, which was the first major stock market crash event since the depression. In 1971, the U.S. went off the gold standard, and the rest of the industrialized world also followed; "floating" their currencies and making the value of such dependent on the strength of their economies.

This is why the stock market today does wild things with the occurrence of global events, like hurricanes, earthquakes or political happenings like national elections. This is also why nations like Russia, China and the U.S. get into "economy wars" with each other. Certain nations and geographic areas have the "lion's share" of natural resources like oil, coal and natural gas, (The Middle-East, Russia, Canada) while others have manufacturing capacity (China, Japan, the U.S.) and still others are leaders in technology (Japan, South Korea, the U.S.). Of course the three biggest military spenders are the U.S., China and Russia; (4th comes Saudi Arabia) and all of this ties together in this global / beast / cabal system.

Subsequent Conflicts:

The next major war to break out between Israel and any of it's neighbors was the 1982 Lebanese war between Israel and the PLO (backed by Iran's Hezbollah). All subsequent conflicts (this one included) directly involving Israel have remained in this category ("local" conflict) and have not involved other nations as directly engaged in nationally declared wars.

As the Soviet Union was beginning to come unraveled by this decade, the next global conflict we see in the Middle-East is Desert Storm in 1991. And as mentioned in a previous paragraph, all sides are still "dirty" in these conflicts. Although Desert Storm did not see official "nuclear bombs", it did see the use of depleted uranium, as well as chemical and biological warfare. Of course the mainstream narrative denies any of this, but evidence can easily be found by simply looking up "Khamisiyah weapons dump" on YouTube.

Chemical and biological weapons were outlawed at the end of WWI. Of which the U.S., Britain, France, and Russia have all signed this treaty. When American marines went into the Khamisiyah munitions complex in Iraq though, they found chemical and biological weapons. (There is footage of this on YouTube.) So, guess where the Iraqis got them from? Primarily the U.S., but also Britain and France. (To my knowledge they found no Soviet chemical / biological weapons in that bunker complex.) Now why did the U.S. sell Saddam Hussain chemical and biological weapons? That goes back to the Iran / Iraq war; (1980-1987) but that is a whole other rabbit hole to save for another discussion.

So obviously bombing this munitions dump caused the release of these agents; of which did cause isolated pockets of mass death of (mostly Bedouins) in the Iraqi desert. American forces had come across areas and a village or two where everything was dead, including the insects.

I remember people talking about this back during the war. The transient military units and civilian contractors I worked with were suspicious that the stuff we were cleaning was "hot". One fellow did manage to scrounge up some chemical weapons kits and a gager counter. And yes, the kits did detect low level presence of agents; but we were all "reassured" that our detection equipment was faulty. "Ironically" though, it only started to "malfunction" after the air war commenced. We were told it was "the sand", yet 6 months of sitting out in the Saudi Arabian desert during Desert Shield and not one peep out of those chemical weapons detectors! Ehhh….. so they "malfunctioned"… all through the war? Yeah! (I got a munitions dump to sell you in Iraq!) It took 25 years before I was "service connected" for Gulf War Syndrome. I know I digress here and my war stories are probably better saved for another discussion; so back to the study.

The next major global conflict the Middle-East saw, came on the heals of 9/11 in which the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan were taken out. Next came Libya with "shake ups" in Egypt and most recently Saudi Arabia. Now of course most everyone knows there is a civil war going on in Syria. Yet "rumors" coming from a certain retired general Wesley Clark, has stated that the intent was to take out not just Iraq, Libya and Syria, but also Sudan, Somalia, Lebanon and Iran. According to the general, this was a "five year plan" of the deep state.

Love to read this.... boss won't like it.... will wait till I'm home.

 

[parousia70]

Israel exists due to so many miracles.... especially in the time shortly after the were given statehood and, without organized military, were attacked from three sides and, not only defeated these foes but took large tracks of land.

There have been numerous attempts to challenge them militarily... yet they prevail.

Israel will not be moved. God's hand is with them. Even when many are against them, they still use their medical genius to operate on and cure the people of their sworn enemies....

So, in other words... don't bother you with scripture, your mind is made up and no scriptural proof to the contrary will ever change it?

 

[parousia70]

I can say I love my American neighbors to the south of Canada... does that mean I love people like Bundy or John Wayne Gracey?

Use some intelligence when you hear things.

So should we require some sort of identifying mark that the actual "Chosen" should wear so we can tell which Jews are Gods Chosen people and which Jews are imposters?

 

[parousia70]

My point was that Israel is a peace loving and accepting country.

Many of it's people are, indeed... you should check out the Israel Loves Iran campaign... It's quite amazing... regular folk from each country giving the middle finger to their respective governments and forging bonding friendships that transcend and reject superficial animosities that their governments both indoctrinate them to have for one another.

Israel-loves-Iran

 

[The Righterzpen]

Many of it's people are, indeed... you should check out the Israel Loves Iran campaign... It's quite amazing... regular folk from each country giving the middle finger to their respective governments and forging bonding friendships that transcend and reject superficial animosities that their governments both indoctrinate them to have for one another.

Israel-loves-Iran

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

LittleLambofJesus said: ↑
One does not have to be a Jew to gain citizenship in Israel and become an "Israelite" anymore than one has to be a Catholic to live in Rome [tho being a Jew makes it easier to become a citizen of Israel]

Thanks for that information.

My point was that Israel is a peace loving and accepting country.

Many Muslims are also peace loving and yes, they have their share of radicals........
They also consider Abram/Abraham as a "father",[as do the Hebrew Israelites] and are descended from Ishmael.

1Ch 1:28
The sons of Abraham were Isaac and Ishmael.
Gen 17:
20
“And as for Ishmael, I have heard you. Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly.
He shall beget twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation.
23
So Abraham took Ishmael his son, all who were born in his house and all who were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house, and circumcised the flesh of their foreskins that very same day, as God had said to him.
Gen 25:9
And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah, which is before Mamre, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite,
Gen 25:17
These were the years of the life of Ishmael: one hundred and thirty-seven years; and he breathed his last and died, and was gathered to his people.
===================
Please visit my "why is rich man calling out to Abraham" thread

Why is the Rich-Man in Luke 16:24 calling out to Abraham?

Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary

LUKE 16:
29 "Abraham said to him, 'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.' "

JOHN 5:45 "Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you — Moses, in whom you trust. 46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote about me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?"

30 "And he said, 'No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.'
31 But he said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.' "..............

Matthew 3:9
“and do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.'
For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.

==============================

Many of it's people are, indeed... you should check out the Israel Loves Iran campaign... It's quite amazing... regular folk from each country giving the middle finger to their respective governments and forging bonding friendships that transcend and reject superficial animosities that their governments both indoctrinate them to have for one another.

Israel-loves-Iran

A tale of 3 different families living in Jerusalem:

 

[JacksBratt]

Many Muslims are also peace loving and yes, they have their share of radicals........
They also consider Abram/Abraham as a "father",[as do the Hebrew Israelites] and are descended from Ishmael.

1Ch 1:28
The sons of Abraham were Isaac and Ishmael.
Gen 17:
20
“And as for Ishmael, I have heard you. Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly.
He shall beget twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation.
23
So Abraham took Ishmael his son, all who were born in his house and all who were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house, and circumcised the flesh of their foreskins that very same day, as God had said to him.
Gen 25:9
And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah, which is before Mamre, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite,
Gen 25:17
These were the years of the life of Ishmael: one hundred and thirty-seven years; and he breathed his last and died, and was gathered to his people.
===================
Please visit my "why is rich man calling out to Abraham" thread

Why is the Rich-Man in Luke 16:24 calling out to Abraham?

Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary

LUKE 16:
29 "Abraham said to him, 'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.' "

30 "And he said, 'No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.'
31 But he said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.' "..............
==============================

A tale of 3 different families living in Jerusalem:

I believe that there are people of all different religious beliefs that are good people.

Some use their religion to do harm to those of others..

Right now, asside from that, Israel is a nation that is always protecting, protecting, protecting their people and their land... Fighting this organization and that council for the right to do what they do..

All they want is peace and it seems that nobody wants to allow them to have it.


If these other nations stopped their military attacks on Israel... there would be no more war
If Israel stops it's defense of these... there would be no more Israel.

 

[BABerean2]

Right now, asside from that, Israel is a nation that is always protecting, protecting, protecting their people and their land... Fighting this organization and that council for the right to do what they do..

All they want is peace and it seems that nobody wants to allow them to have it.

June 8, 1967

34 Americans killed, and many more wounded by the Israelis.

.

 

[kcnalp]

The tiny spec on the map called Israel is the Apple of God's eye! Yes, watch Israel!

Luke 21:32
32 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all things take place.

 

[BABerean2]

The tiny spec on the map called Israel is the Apple of God's eye! Yes, watch Israel!

Luke 21:32
32 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all things take place.

Are you saying a person can be in a right relationship with God, based on who their parents would be, or based on geographic location, even though they reject God's Son?

Do you understand the difference between the Baal worshipers, and the faithful remnant, in Romans 11:1-5?

.

 

[kcnalp]

Are you saying a person can be in a right relationship with God, based on who their parents would be, or based on geographic location, even though they reject God's Son?

Do you understand the difference between the Baal worshipers, and the faithful remnant, in Romans 11:1-5?

.

God brought Israel back into their Land to save them and as a warning that this is the terminal generation. God fights for Israel.

 

[The Righterzpen]

God fights for Israel.

With billions of dollars from the US.... Hum????

 

[BABerean2]

God brought Israel back into their Land to save them and as a warning that this is the terminal generation. God fights for Israel.

Based on the scripture below, those who deny the Son do not have a relationship with the Father.

1Jn 2:23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

2Jn 1:9 Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.
2Jn 1:10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him;
2Jn 1:11 for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.


Pastor Chuck Baldwin reveals one of the greatest deceptions in the history of the Church.
At one time it deceived him.

.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

There's an interesting book called "Secrets of Golgotha" by Ernst Martin (and I don't agree with every thing he says) but I think he's dead on about where the temple actually was and where Jesus was crucified. He was crucified on the Mt. of Olives. We know this because the Scriptures state that the Roman centurion and the soldiers witnessed the veil of the temple being torn, and they could only do this if they were facing it. The temple faced east, so they had to be east of it, facing west; which would have put them on the Mount of Olives, somewhere in the vicinity of the red heifer bridge.

==========================================

It's the only thing that makes sense when you look at all the evidence.
Census:
"Golgotha" which in Greek was "Calvary" meant "place of the skull" but more accurately "place of the counting heads". It comes from a Hebrew idiom that means to take a census by counting skulls (or we'd use the term "head count"). And the Romans took the census of everyone coming into Jerusalem every Passover from this location.

Now of course if you want to make the most impact of your authority in deterrence of criminal activity; you put your execution site right next to where everyone passes through to be counted.

Crucifixions:
Allegedly too, the "Secrets of Golgotha" book stated that the Romans had a custom of executing people in the location the crime was committed; (Jesus was arrested on the Mt of Olives) yet that assertion doesn't really make a whole lot of practical sense. Crucifixions would take place in designated spots because the vertical beam of the cross stayed permanently in the ground. The condemned man (usually) carried the horizontal beam (which was alleged to range between about 70 and 100 lbs). (The Romans did not crucify women.)

Now according to archeological studies done on bones found in Jewish tombs from the 1st century; the average Jewish male was between 4ft 11in and 5 3'. 110 to 130lbs. Average Roman soldier was 5 6' and 160lbs. (You had to be at least 5ft to join the army.)

So if Jesus fell within that statistical average, he would not have been very tall or very heavy. Also if we consider that on the beginning of having just been baptized, Jesus spent 40 days where He didn't eat anything. At the point that 40 days had expired, He was on the verge of starving to death; so thus would have had very little muscle mass. Obviously post wilderness, He began eating and would have gained back some weight. Yet from that point, He was traveling around by foot preaching, and was not likely to have done much manual labor; so thus would not have looked as He did when He came to be baptized (having come off a 20 or so year span of having done carpentry work). So come crucifixion time, we are not talking someone who would have had the physique of even an athlete.

"And he carried his cross."
Here's another interesting one. Who's really the "he" in this passage? If we compare gospels. John is the only gospel that makes this statement. All the other gospels say Simon of Cyrene carried Jesus's cross. And many assume - well Jesus fell down, so they grabbed Simon because Jesus fell down.

Yet if we look at how the cross been was usually tied to the person who was carrying it; that doesn't quite fit either. If Jesus "fell down" with a beam tied to His arms. First off, He wouldn't have been able to get up, and they would have had to cut him free.
It would not have been an "oops, I dropped my cross." moment. If He's (statically) between 110 and 130 lbs and falls face down with a 70 to 100 lb beam tied to His back - so much for the prophecy of "no broken bones". It doesn't fit.

So taking all this into consideration. Here they have a guy who does't really deserve to die. He's most likely bleeding from being flogged. He's probably not very big and not in particularly good shape after having been beaten.
And they have to go from the Praetorium, which is in the middle of the Antonia fortress, across the walk way, through the court of the gentiles, passed the front of the temple, down the walkway / stairs, through the triple gate, across the red heifer bridge to the crucifixion site. The gospels do tell us that Jesus speaks to people on this path.

We get to the crucifixion. Both the thieves and Jesus are talking to people. These are fairly complex interactions obviously requiring some intellectual capacity. So I think it's safe to come to the conclusion that none of these men had arrived at the crucifixion site having been beaten within an inch of their lives.

So after 6 hours on a cross; Jesus dies at about 3 PM. and the text says that Pilate is surprised that He died so quickly. Again, indication that they weren't beaten within an inch of their lives before being crucified.

So there's the information I've garnished upon research on that.
Cemeteries:
Also, what was on the Mt. of Olives in the vicinity at that time was a cemetery. The Scripture says the ground shook and the graves split open at the point Jesus died.
Archeologically speaking the evidence of this is actually in existence today. It's hard to find today because housing has since been built in the valley over part of this ancient cemetery, but if you could walk through these peoples' back yards, you could see this.
Researchers in connection to this actually took some photos of the area and prior to 1950 before all these settlements were there, it was far clearer to see.

Temple Mount:
Now the location that everyone thinks is the temple mount, where the Dome of the Rock mosque is; was not the temple mount.
The temple was south of that in side the city of David. Where the Dome of the Rock is, is what's left of the Antonia fortress.

So taking all this into consideration. Here they have a guy who does't really deserve to die. He's most likely bleeding from being flogged. He's probably not very big and not in particularly good shape after having been beaten.
And they have to go from the Praetorium, which is in the middle of the Antonia fortress, across the walk way, through the court of the gentiles, passed the front of the temple, down the walkway / stairs, through the triple gate, across the red heifer bridge to the crucifixion site. The gospels do tell us that Jesus speaks to people on this path.
Also, what was on the Mt. of Olives in the vicinity at that time was a cemetery. The Scripture says the ground shook and the graves split open at the point Jesus died.

Fascinating posts! I have never heard of the Red Heifer Bridge until now.

That would mean not only did Jesus give His 70ad Olivet Discourse from there, but that is where Caesar's famed 10th Legion under Titus camp in 70ad!

Matthew 24 Mount of Olives and Titus's 10th Legion on Mt Olives 70ad
Titus and Mount of Olives
==================
Link to a site showing some pictures of that bridge...
[I may make a thread on this]

The Red Heifer Bridge by Norma Robertson

This is important because the angle from the end of the bridge, on the lower part of the Mt of Olives, to the Holy of Holies must allow for a person to see through the East Gate, the inner east gate, and through the Temple door, seeing the veil that hung before the Holy of Holies.
Also the Priest performing the Red Heifer sacrifice at the top of the Mount of Olives needed to be able to see the Temple sanctuary to know when to begin the sacrifice. So in this case he would need to be able to see over the top of the East gate and also over the inner east gate.

The bridge is approximately 1,000 feet long and at around a 3 percent grade from the end of the bridge up to Triple gate (Solomon's Portico, which had the entrance to the East Gate within it).

The way the bridge was constructed it allowed for air to be between the priest and the graves below.
Purity was demanded.

Living water had to be carried up the Mount to the Place of the Red Heifer Sacrifice. For this reason hollows (tunnels/caverns) were cut into the bedrock. Chosen women gave birth there, and the boys born in the hollow grew up there, never allowed to venture out, for fear of them walking over a grave. To get the water to the top of the Mt of Olives these boys were carried on large doors up the Mountain while holding rock hewn bowls full of living water. Can you imagine being under such strict laws like this?

If the Jews in the time of Solomon used a smaller cubit to measure out the 2000 cu, or if they measured down into the Kidron valley rather than over the bridge, then the red heifer altar would have been built a little lower down on the Mt of Olives. This is always a possibility, however it is written that the altar was on the summit (top of the Mount as being directly east of the Temple).
===========================
A 4 part series on the Red Heifer from a favorite commentator of mine:

http://www.kingdombiblestudies.org/tablecontents.htm
Kindgdom Bible Studies Ashes of a Red Heifer Part 1

"For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ASHES OF AN HEIFER sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies to the purifying of the flesh: how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God" (Heb. 9:13-14).

In the worship of the Old Testament great principles of truth and eternal spiritual realities were conveyed through outward signs and symbols. The eye is quicker than the ear. And there is therefore no language so expressive as the language of symbols. The multitude will better catch your meaning by one apt symbol than by a thousand words. The mind shrinks from the intellectual effort of grappling with the subtle essences of things, and loves to have truth wrapped up in a form which can easily be taken in by the eye, the ear, the sense of touch.
This explains why there is such a tendency towards ritualism in the apostate Churches. Where man's spiritual life is strong, it is independent of the outward form; but when it is weak it leans feebly on external aids. And it was because the children of Israel were in so childish a condition that God enshrined His deep and holy thoughts in outward forms and material patterns.
The untutored and unspiritual people must have spiritual truth expressed in symbols, which appealed to the most obtuse. For fifteen hundred years, therefore, the Israelitish worship gathered round the most splendid ceremonial that the world has ever seen.


Numbers 19 is a most unusual chapter in the Old Testament.
All the offerings in the Bible are bullocks and rams, but here there is an exception - a heifer, a female cow who has never given birth. All the offerings in the Old Testament are slaughtered and offered to God, but this offering of the red heifer, though killed and burned, is very different from the rest.
While all others are offered to God to meet current claims - that is, the sin-offering, the burnt offering, or the peace offering according to the need of the day - the red heifer alone was not for the present need. It was offered to meet future needs.
The ordinance of the red heifer stands alone. While other sacrifices are often brought before us, this one is recorded in no other part of Israel's history.

The cleansing for which these red cow ashes were prescribed, were of a peculiar kind, namely, specially for those who became CEREMONIALLY UNCLEAN by coming into contact with DEATH. It is called a "sin-offering" only in the sense that a ceremonially unclean person came under the jurisdiction of the law, with penalty if he were not properly cleansed according to law. The ashes of the heifer were not designed to remove MORAL SIN, it was only a ceremonial cleansing, called by the writer of Hebrews that which "sanctifies to the purifying of the flesh" (Heb. 9:13). Bullocks were offered by people who had committed sin in its usual sense - moral sin. If I were Israelite, and had sinned against my neighbor, or against God, I could bring a bullock or sheep to God and offer it as a sin-offering because I had wronged or offended either man or God. But the offering of the red heifer was different. In relation to its purifying work no man had been wronged, nor had God been disobeyed!

Through Moses and Aaron the Lord commanded the people to bring a red heifer - one without spot or blemish and which had never been under the yoke of service - and present it to the High Priest. The High Priest in turn gave the red heifer into the hands of Eliezer the priest to be taken outside the Camp and slaughtered there in his presence. It was not one of the sin-offerings of the Day of Atonement, nor was it one of the offerings of the people subsequent to the Day of Atonement - indeed, it was no "offering" at all, for no part of it was offered on the Lord's altar or eaten by the priests. It was sacrificed, but not in the same sense, nor in the same place, as these offerings - in the Court. It was not even killed by one of the priests, nor was its blood taken into the Tabernacle of His presence. The red heifer was taken outside the Camp of Israel, and was then killed and burned to ashes, - flesh, fat, hide, blood, etc. - except a little of the blood taken by the priest and sprinkled seven times toward the front of the Tabernacle (Revised Version). While the body of the heifer was being incinerated, Eliezer was to throw cedar wood, hyssop and scarlet thread into the burning fire. When all was consumed, the ASHES of the heifer were not brought into the Tabernacle, but were left outside the Camp, gathered together in a heap, and apparently accessible to any of the people who had use for them. Under the prescription of the law, a portion of the ashes was to be mixed with running water in a vessel, and a bunch of hyssop dipped into this water was to be used in sprinkling the person, clothing, tent, vessels, etc., of any one who contracted ceremonial defilement through touching or approaching a dead body. Thus, any one who became legally unclean through touching a dead body, was cleansed or purified by being sprinkled with water containing some of the ashes of the heifer. This "water of separation" could be used for other purification purposes. According to Num. 31:21-13, metal vessels captured among the spoils of war could be cleansed from idolatrous contamination by being passed through the fire and then sprinkled with this water.
============================

 

[The Righterzpen]

==========================================



Fascinating posts! I have never heard of the Red Heifer Bridge until now.

That would mean not only did Jesus give His 70ad Olivet Discourse from there, but that is where Caesar's famed 10th Legion under Titus camp in 70ad!

Matthew 24 Mount of Olives and Titus's 10th Legion on Mt Olives 70ad
Titus and Mount of Olives
==================
Link to a site showing some pictures of that bridge and how it could be Jesus
[I may make a thread on this]

The Red Heifer Bridge by Norma Robertson


View attachment 260166

This is important because the angle from the end of the bridge, on the lower part of the Mt of Olives, to the Holy of Holies must allow for a person to see through the East Gate, the inner east gate, and through the Temple door, seeing the veil that hung before the Holy of Holies.
Also the Priest performing the Red Heifer sacrifice at the top of the Mount of Olives needed to be able to see the Temple sanctuary to know when to begin the sacrifice. So in this case he would need to be able to see over the top of the East gate and also over the inner east gate.

The bridge is approximately 1,000 feet long and at around a 3 percent grade from the end of the bridge up to Triple gate (Solomon's Portico, which had the entrance to the East Gate within it).

The way the bridge was constructed it allowed for air to be between the priest and the graves below.
Purity was demanded.

Living water had to be carried up the Mount to the Place of the Red Heifer Sacrifice. For this reason hollows (tunnels/caverns) were cut into the bedrock. Chosen women gave birth there, and the boys born in the hollow grew up there, never allowed to venture out, for fear of them walking over a grave. To get the water to the top of the Mt of Olives these boys were carried on large doors up the Mountain while holding rock hewn bowls full of living water. Can you imagine being under such strict laws like this?

If the Jews in the time of Solomon used a smaller cubit to measure out the 2000 cu, or if they measured down into the Kidron valley rather than over the bridge, then the red heifer altar would have been built a little lower down on the Mt of Olives. This is always a possibility, however it is written that the altar was on the summit (top of the Mount as being directly east of the Temple).
===========================
A 4 part series on the Red Heifer from a favorite commentator of mine:

http://www.kingdombiblestudies.org/tablecontents.htm
Kindgdom Bible Studies Ashes of a Red Heifer Part 1

"For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ASHES OF AN HEIFER sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies to the purifying of the flesh: how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God" (Heb. 9:13-14).

In the worship of the Old Testament great principles of truth and eternal spiritual realities were conveyed through outward signs and symbols. The eye is quicker than the ear. And there is therefore no language so expressive as the language of symbols. The multitude will better catch your meaning by one apt symbol than by a thousand words. The mind shrinks from the intellectual effort of grappling with the subtle essences of things, and loves to have truth wrapped up in a form which can easily be taken in by the eye, the ear, the sense of touch.
This explains why there is such a tendency towards ritualism in the apostate Churches. Where man's spiritual life is strong, it is independent of the outward form; but when it is weak it leans feebly on external aids. And it was because the children of Israel were in so childish a condition that God enshrined His deep and holy thoughts in outward forms and material patterns.
The untutored and unspiritual people must have spiritual truth expressed in symbols, which appealed to the most obtuse. For fifteen hundred years, therefore, the Israelitish worship gathered round the most splendid ceremonial that the world has ever seen.


Numbers 19 is a most unusual chapter in the Old Testament.
All the offerings in the Bible are bullocks and rams, but here there is an exception - a heifer, a female cow who has never given birth. All the offerings in the Old Testament are slaughtered and offered to God, but this offering of the red heifer, though killed and burned, is very different from the rest.
While all others are offered to God to meet current claims - that is, the sin-offering, the burnt offering, or the peace offering according to the need of the day - the red heifer alone was not for the present need. It was offered to meet future needs.
The ordinance of the red heifer stands alone. While other sacrifices are often brought before us, this one is recorded in no other part of Israel's history.

The cleansing for which these red cow ashes were prescribed, were of a peculiar kind, namely, specially for those who became CEREMONIALLY UNCLEAN by coming into contact with DEATH. It is called a "sin-offering" only in the sense that a ceremonially unclean person came under the jurisdiction of the law, with penalty if he were not properly cleansed according to law. The ashes of the heifer were not designed to remove MORAL SIN, it was only a ceremonial cleansing, called by the writer of Hebrews that which "sanctifies to the purifying of the flesh" (Heb. 9:13). Bullocks were offered by people who had committed sin in its usual sense - moral sin. If I were Israelite, and had sinned against my neighbor, or against God, I could bring a bullock or sheep to God and offer it as a sin-offering because I had wronged or offended either man or God. But the offering of the red heifer was different. In relation to its purifying work no man had been wronged, nor had God been disobeyed!

Through Moses and Aaron the Lord commanded the people to bring a red heifer - one without spot or blemish and which had never been under the yoke of service - and present it to the High Priest. The High Priest in turn gave the red heifer into the hands of Eliezer the priest to be taken outside the Camp and slaughtered there in his presence. It was not one of the sin-offerings of the Day of Atonement, nor was it one of the offerings of the people subsequent to the Day of Atonement - indeed, it was no "offering" at all, for no part of it was offered on the Lord's altar or eaten by the priests. It was sacrificed, but not in the same sense, nor in the same place, as these offerings - in the Court. It was not even killed by one of the priests, nor was its blood taken into the Tabernacle of His presence. The red heifer was taken outside the Camp of Israel, and was then killed and burned to ashes, - flesh, fat, hide, blood, etc. - except a little of the blood taken by the priest and sprinkled seven times toward the front of the Tabernacle (Revised Version). While the body of the heifer was being incinerated, Eliezer was to throw cedar wood, hyssop and scarlet thread into the burning fire. When all was consumed, the ASHES of the heifer were not brought into the Tabernacle, but were left outside the Camp, gathered together in a heap, and apparently accessible to any of the people who had use for them. Under the prescription of the law, a portion of the ashes was to be mixed with running water in a vessel, and a bunch of hyssop dipped into this water was to be used in sprinkling the person, clothing, tent, vessels, etc., of any one who contracted ceremonial defilement through touching or approaching a dead body. Thus, any one who became legally unclean through touching a dead body, was cleansed or purified by being sprinkled with water containing some of the ashes of the heifer. This "water of separation" could be used for other purification purposes. According to Num. 31:21-13, metal vessels captured among the spoils of war could be cleansed from idolatrous contamination by being passed through the fire and then sprinkled with this water.
============================

I believe you are correct that Numbers 19 is the only place that speaks directly about the red heifer bridge. It is, and said to be connected to being banned from the garden of Eden.

Where had the Olivet Discourse been "held" is a good question; as well as the Romans attack on the city. Those, I'd never thought about before; and I don't know if the passages themselves give us enough information. That's something I'd have to research. I'll get back to you on this one.

It is correct though that but priests (red heifer and other wise) had to be able to see what the other was doing, thus the reason of the matter of set up.

 

[BABerean2]

While the body of the heifer was being incinerated, Eliezer was to throw cedar wood, hyssop and scarlet thread into the burning fire. When all was consumed, the ASHES of the heifer were not brought into the Tabernacle, but were left outside the Camp, gathered together in a heap, and apparently accessible to any of the people who had use for them. Under the prescription of the law, a portion of the ashes was to be mixed with running water in a vessel, and a bunch of hyssop dipped into this water was to be used in sprinkling the person, clothing, tent, vessels, etc., of any one who contracted ceremonial defilement through touching or approaching a dead body. Thus, any one who became legally unclean through touching a dead body, was cleansed or purified by being sprinkled with water containing some of the ashes of the heifer. This "water of separation" could be used for other purification purposes.

Adding wood to the fire produced Lye (Sodium Hydroxide) in the ashes, which could act as an antibacterial agent.
When fat is mixed with Lye it produces soap.
It is possible that some of the fat of the heifer mixed with the Lye and produced soap in the ashes.

Many of the directions God gave the children of Israel about how to deal with dead bodies, and which foods to avoid, were designed to keep the people healthy.
People before this time knew nothing about germs or parasites.

The descendants of Jacob had a job to do. That job was to produce the Messiah found in the first verse of the New Testament. (See also Luke 24:25-27.)


Mat 1:1 The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham:

.

 

[ebedmelech]

God brought Israel back into their Land to save them and as a warning that this is the terminal generation. God fights for Israel.

Correction...God fights for "the Israel of God"!

 

[mkgal1]

Eliezer was to throw cedar wood, hyssop and scarlet thread into the burning fire.

Interesting. I'm guessing there are symbolic meanings to all of these components that were required. For instance, I just heard yesterday that the plant hyssop is mentioned all throughout the Bible. It was used in the cleansings of lepers (in order for them to participate in temple worship); David mentioned the plant in his Psalm (Psalm 51:7); and, maybe most importantly, it was the plant used as the paintbrush in the Passover in Exodus 12:22 - which points to Jesus on the cross.

Quoting Lysa Terkeurst:
If we turn over to John 19, we will see hyssop is one of the last things Jesus interacted with on this earth.

As Jesus hung on the cross, He said He was thirsty. Then, in John 19:29 we’re told, “A jar full of sour wine stood there, so they put a sponge full of the sour wine on a hyssop branch and held it to his mouth” (ESV). Then He declared, “It is finished,” and breathed His last breath (John 19:30b, ESV).

I love how hyssop weaves all of these moments together and points us straight to the hope we have in Jesus. Hyssop was there as the paintbrush at Passover. Hyssop was there as the purification tool of David. And it was there when Jesus became the ultimate Passover lamb, providing the way for us to be cleansed and purified from all sin. ~ An Unexpected Thread of Hope​