Daniel Imperato – Official Website
Daniel Imperato For President 2024
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article …
The post Britain’s Undeclared War with Russia appeared first on Global Research.
Tenant farmers picking cotton in Mississippi circa 1890. (Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Archives and Records Services Division)
When a black man named Oliver Cromwell began organizing local chapters of the Colored Farmers’ Alliance throughout Leflore County, Mississippi, and the surrounding area in 1889, both white planters and black farmers took notice, although for different reasons.
Founded in Houston County, Texas, just three years earlier, the Colored Farmers’ National Alliance and Cooperative Union, or “Colored Alliance” as it was more commonly known, quickly blossomed to over one million members across the South and beyond. The group offered self-help programs for black farmers, ran home ownership campaigns, argued for fair pricing, provided education programs on modern farming practices, educated farmers on their cooperative purchasing power, lobbied legislatures, and even launched strikes and boycotts.
In Leflore County, where three-quarters of residents were black, and two-thirds of those worked as sharecroppers, many formerly enslaved, Cromwell and the Colored Alliance offered the hope of upending the ruling planter class in the precarious years between the end of Reconstruction and the advent of Jim Crow.
Cromwell, whose namesake was an African American Revolutionary War hero, had a long history of standing tall in the face of violent threats. He had served in the 5th United States Colored Heavy Artillery regiment in the Civil War, fighting in the Battle of Milliken’s Bend. And he had braved the 1875 Clinton Massacre, where nearly sixty people were slaughtered and another thirty injured, following a rally and picnic for Reconstruction-era black politicians in Mississippi.
Illustration of the Battle of Milliken’s Bend, June 7, 1863, part of the Vicksburg Campaign of the American Civil War in which African American soldiers led the Union to victory. (Harper’s Weekly, July 4, 1863)
Now, with white elites inflamed at his sharecropper organizing, Cromwell again found himself in peril. Death threats, both verbal and printed, poured in. Backing up Cromwell, seventy-five armed representatives of the Colored Alliance delivered their own message: they would not be intimidated, had power in numbers, and were military trained.
The act of defiance and solidarity was not enough, however. Mobs of white men from throughout the region descended upon the town in search of black farmers, with little attention given to whether the people they were attacking were even members of the Colored Alliance. The governor called in the National Guard, but they quickly dispersed as the mob grew out of control. By the time the deadly attacks came to an end, over twenty black citizens had lost their lives, with some reports claiming the number was closer to two hundred.
Although short-lived and little-known today, the Colored Farmers’ Alliance and similar groups in the late 1800s made up the largest black political movement in the South before the modern civil rights movement. Black populism not only helped pave the way for later resistance among black sharecroppers, farmers, and other agrarian workers, but tilled the soil for a sustained mass black politics and the dreams of an alternative to a racist, plutocratic system.
The Colored Farmers’ Alliance was established in 1886 in Houston County, Texas, by sixteen black men on the farm of Richard M. Humphrey, a white Baptist minister and former Confederate soldier. Although membership was limited to African Americans, Humphrey was elected a superintendent and spokesperson of the Colored Alliance and was able to address the group’s concerns to white audiences without the same threat of retaliation. Black leaders joining Humphrey at the helm included J. J. Shuffer, president, and H. J. Spencer, secretary.
The Colored Alliance’s primary mission was to give black farmers the tools to fight not only falling commodity prices, high interest rates, and rising supply costs, but also discriminatory practices by white landowners and business owners. Across the New South, black organizing was being met with mob violence. To protect themselves, the group’s charter specified that they would operate as a secret organization with passwords, much as black fraternal organizations did. They also noted that they would operate separately from the National Farmers’ Alliance, which excluded African Americans from the membership rolls.
A short write up in the Clarion Ledger (MS) on May 2, 1889, notes new branches of the Colored Alliance opening in South Carolina. When the private group did make public announcements, they often specified that their goals were self help and not political, even if in reality the group had intentions of disrupting systems. (Clarion Ledger, May 2, 1889.)
The Colored Alliance trained members in economic and political governance, promoted character-building programs, supported mutual aid in their community, argued for more schools for African American children, agitated for more humane treatment of black convict farm laborers, and taught members about their civil rights. They flexed their collective buying power, operating exchanges in Houston, Texas; New Orleans, Louisiana; Charleston, South Carolina; Mobile, Alabama; and Norfolk, Virginia. The upstart group even started their own newspaper in 1889 to coordinate efforts and communicate across state lines.
Within a few short years — thanks to existing networks of black churches and fraternal organizations, aligned unions like the Colored Agricultural Wheel, and the tenacity of state organizers like Cromwell in Mississippi, Ben Patterson in Tennessee, and Rev. W. A. Pattillo in North Carolina — the Colored Alliance boasted more than one million members, although that figure was likely inflated. While no membership or institutional records remain, Humphrey claimed that Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas all had between ninety thousand and one hundred thousand Colored Alliance members, with other southern states reporting sizable amounts just under that. In Texas alone, fifty-six counties had Colored Alliance charters, with reportedly thousands of subchapters.
While Colored Alliance members and National Farmers’ Alliance members had different and sometimes conflicting goals (many more in the white Farmers’ Alliance, particularly leaders, owned land and employed farmhands), the two at times worked together. White alliance leaders joined the annual convening of delegates of the Colored Alliance in St Louis in 1889 and again in Ocala, Florida, in 1890. North Carolina’s Pattillo noted that members of both alliances helped him clandestinely recruit black farmers to the Colored Alliance.
The Constitution of the Colored Farmers’ National Alliance and Cooperative Union of the United States. (Virginia Virtual Archive)
The groups also worked across racial and state lines to participate in a boycott of jute — which was used to wrap bales of cotton — beginning in 1888. A couple years later in Louisiana, white and black alliance members banded together against the state lottery program, which they saw as a mutual threat to poor farmers enticed by get-rich-quick schemes.
Still, National Farmers’ Alliance leaders refused to budge on their policy of racial exclusion, stating they were “in favor of equal and exact justice to all men, regardless of race, color or previous condition,” but that they wanted “all colored organizations to have their own State and national organizations, as well as their own schools and churches and separate hotels and railroad accommodations.”
As the Colored Farmers’ Alliance gained converts in droves, another agrarian organization with a similar name, the National Colored Alliance, was also flourishing in the South, claiming 250,000 members of its own. The two groups were plagued by disagreements that “divided our churches . . . embittered our communities and created discord in our families.” Although there was brief talk in 1890 of merging the organizations, leadership disagreements about how and when to strike burned any bridge under construction.
In 1891, at the peak of its membership, the Colored Alliance attempted to organize a cotton pickers’ strike to earn better prices for their crops. If landowners could conspire together to keep prices low, sharecroppers reasoned that they, too, could band together and demand one dollar per one hundred pounds of cotton. Although the pending strike was widely publicized, and the union’s membership was reportedly large, when the planned date of September 12 came and went, only Texas saw any action.
By the end of the month, however, violence would erupt again one hundred miles north of Leflore in Lee County, Arkansas. There, in the heat of the Arkansas Delta, a man named Ben Patterson had been organizing black cotton pickers. He managed to organize dozens of men to press for 75 cents per pound. (It is unclear if Patterson had any direct affiliation with the Colored Alliance or the earlier planned strike.)
This newspaper headline notes the details of what is now called the Lee County Massacre. (Arkansas Gazette, October 2, 1891)
Again, those in power responded with violence. Angry white mobs attacked the strikers, with fifteen black lives lost in the attacks and another nine imprisoned. Of the fifteen, nine had been captured by the mob from police custody and lynched. An Arkansas Gazette, headline from October 2, 1891, read, “Nine Negroes Lynched: The Lee County Trouble Settled With Rope.” One white plantation superintendent also died.
The Colored Alliance never recovered.
Around the same time, a union for white farmers called the Agricultural Wheel again raised hope of interracial cooperation.
Organized near Des Arc, Arkansas, in 1882, the group’s mission resembled many other farmers’ aid organizations at the time, including the Colored Alliance. It supported cooperative buying and selling, breaking up monopolies, establishing a railroad commission, and the education of the masses.
Acceptance of black farmers into the Wheel’s ranks varied from location to location. Black Wheelers had success organizing in St Francis County, Arkansas, despite violent retaliation, and in Tennessee and elsewhere black farmers started an entirely independent offshoot of their own called the Colored Agricultural Wheel.
Elsewhere, bigotry prevailed over class politics: Wheelers from states like Arkansas and Kentucky fought vehemently against the removal of the word “white” from the Agricultural Wheel’s requirements and bylaws that same year. In 1887, the Wheel merged with an organization called Brothers of Freedom that barred black farmers from membership and announced plans for a consolidation meeting with the Southern Alliance, which limited membership to “white persons over sixteen years old engaged in agriculture and related pursuits.”
This preamble to the Constitution for the Grand Agricultural Wheel of the State of Alabama lays out the largely white organization’s mission and vision for a united laboring class. (Southern Tenant Farmers’ Museum)
While any hope of organizational cooperation dissipated, in Arkansas, white Agricultural Wheel members (mostly former Democrats) and Colored Agricultural Wheel leaders (all erstwhile Republican Party supporters) joined forces to attack the Democratic ruling class with the short-lived Arkansas Union Labor Party. Although they only participated in two election cycles, in 1888 and 1890, the labor party’s victories marked the only time the state’s Democratic-dominated system faced serious opposition at the polls. Baptist minister G. W. Lowe, president of the Arkansas State Colored Agricultural Wheel, served in the state legislature in 1891, as did many other African Americans at the local level.
Ruling-class Democrats had seen enough. They passed laws to disfranchise Arkansas’s poor black and white voters in 1891, and in 1892, a new state poll tax sealed the deal. Southern elites elsewhere used the same formula. They were terrified of the organizing progress that the masses had made, even if on slightly separate and somewhat segregated trajectories.
In a bid to decisively stamp out class politics and any whiff of cross-racial solidarity, those in power enacted Jim Crow laws to stifle any challenge to the plutocratic order. When laws were not enough, violence and intimidation at the polls and elsewhere helped keep poor workers divided and white supremacy strong.
Although violence against African Americans had been mounting in the years after Reconstruction, the 1890s saw new levels of racist terror and political oppression. Between 1890 and 1905, every single state in the South approved literacy and poll tax laws and officially segregated its public facilities. Lynchings became nightmarishly common. And organizing workers grew harder and harder.
Colored Alliance members were just one group of Southern black laborers who endured violence in those post-Reconstruction years. A group in South Carolina called the Co-operative Workers of America, which sought to eliminate the dependence of rural black workers on rural merchants and company stores, was hit with ferocious attacks in 1887. That same year, a strike organized by the Knights of Labor and black sugar plantation workers in Louisiana was met with deadly violence, with over sixty losing their lives in what would become known as the Thibodaux Massacre.
Women are shown cutting sugarcane in Louisiana around the same time period as the Thibodaux Massacre. (Library of Congress)
These violent acts were a brutal response to the economic, political, and social power that black citizens had managed to accumulate. Between Reconstruction and 1890, the total amount of land owned by African Americans tripled. Literacy and school enrollment expanded dramatically, and black Republicans won and held political seats across the South thanks in part to black voters.
Groups like the Colored Alliance and other black farmers’ collectives, while perhaps unsuccessful in their immediate goals, helped build opposition to plantation Democrats via third-party politics, chipped away at the oppressive agrarian economy, and served as a practice run for future moments of black and interracial farmer resistance, including the 1930s Southern Tenant Farmers Union.
Black populism may have been written out of the history books. But in its day, it was a mighty force.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article …
The post May 8 and the Rehabilitation of Nazism in Germany appeared first on Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article …
The post Lost Souls with Nukes appeared first on Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article …
The post New York to Track Residents’ Food Purchases and Place ‘Caps on Meat’ Served by Public Institutions appeared first on Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article …
The post Big Pharma’s ‘Rampant Corporate Lawlessness’ Cost Americans $40 Billion in 2019: Report appeared first on Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article …
The post Washington Wants War with China Served Hot, Not Cold appeared first on Global Research.
Fifteen months into Putin’s second invasion of Ukraine—and just eight months away from what increasingly looks like a second Biden–Trump election showdown—partisans on both sides are trying fix the blame for the largest, bloodiest, costliest war to scar Europe since 1939. There’s plenty of blame to go around, but the central cause of this war is hiding in plain sight.
Biden
President Joe Biden could have done more to deter Vladimir Putin and less to tempt him. The chaotic way Biden pulled U.S. forces out of Afghanistan in late 2021 sent a terrible signal to Putin. Just as bad, the pullout undermined the unity of the NATO alliance. NATO allies were not consulted so much they were notified that Biden was moving forward with President Donald Trump’s pullout plans. Too many Americans forget or are unaware that as Afghan operations came to a close—20 years after al-Qaeda’s attacks on America’s largest city and America’s military headquarters—74 percent of the foreign troops deployed in the country that spawned 9/11 were not American.
This explains why some openly worried that the U.S. withdrawal would do serious damage to NATO’s unity and credibility. “It is the biggest debacle that NATO has suffered since its founding,” said a senior German official.
Still, the Biden administration did many things right on the eve of Putin’s second invasion of Ukraine, including: sharing intelligence about the invasion with Kiev in December 2021 and then publicizing it in early 2022; rushing antitank missiles and other defensive weapons to Ukraine before February 24; and shoring up NATO’s eastern flank by dusting off the old playbook of deterrence and deploying defensive assets to Poland, the Baltics, Romania and the Mediterranean.
Trump and Obama
Deterrence—what President Ronald Reagan called “peace through strength”—is more prudent, more effective, less costly in blood and treasure, more just, and more morally sound than the alternatives: peace through hope and crossed fingers, peace through scorched-earth violence, peace through submission. While the Biden administration’s policies have deterred Putin from extending his war into Eastern Europe, they weren’t able to deter Putin’s assault on Ukraine. One major reason why is that deterrence doesn’t happen with the flick of a switch or the inauguration of a president. Credible deterrence requires credible policies and credible words backed by credible force. By word and deed, the Trump-Obama years badly eroded each of those elements of deterrence vis-à-vis Putin’s Russia.
Trump often touts his relationship with Putin and his ability to keep Putin at bay. But it’s hard to credit Trump for preventing war in Ukraine given that Trump undermined the one thing Putin respects: the military deterrent embodied by NATO. Recall that Trump dismissed NATO as “obsolete” and suggested he would come to the defense of NATO members under attack—an ironclad requirement of the North Atlantic Treaty—only if they had “fulfilled their obligations to us.” Worse, he deleted language from his 2017 NATO speech reaffirming America’s commitment to NATO’s all-for-one defense clause. Doubly worse, he privately and publicly threatened to pull the U.S. out of NATO. In 2020, he ordered the withdrawal of 12,000 U.S. troops from Germany.
Just as Trump eroded the credibility of America’s commitment to NATO, his predecessor whittled away many of the tools representing that commitment.
It was President Barack Obama who ordered the Pentagon to cut $487 billion from its spending plans, and it was the Obama administration that proposed $1 trillion in cuts—divided between defense and certain domestic programs—known as sequestration. As Gen. James Mattis put it, sequestration was “a mechanism meant to be so injurious to the military it would never go into effect.” But a special congressional committee charged with deficit reduction couldn’t agree on spending cuts, and sequestration came down like a guillotine on America’s military. Sequestration would lop off $500 billion in planned defense spending—in addition to the initial $487 billion in cuts.
“No enemy in the field has done more to harm the readiness of our military than sequestration,” Mattis concluded. The Air Force stood down 31 squadrons. In 2011, the Army’s active-duty end strength was 566,000; after sequestration, it was 476,000. Sequestration grounded half of the Marines’ fixed-wing fighters. The situation was so dire that, incredibly, Marine aviation units were reduced to salvaging aircraft parts from museums to keep planes flying. Sequestration left 53 percent of Navy aircraft unable to fly—double the historic average—and left America with just 277 active deployable ships. By way of context, then-CNO Adm. Jonathan Greenert reported in 2014: “For us to meet what combatant commanders request, we need a Navy of 450 ships.”
Between 2011 and 2013, the Obama administration withdrew all of America’s heavy armor from Europe (marking the first time since 1944 Europe was left unprotected by American tanks), deactivated the Navy’s North Atlantic-focused 2nd Fleet and shuttered the Army’s Germany-based V Corps. And in 2014, after Putin’s first invasion of Ukraine and seizure of Crimea, the Obama administration sent Kiev non-lethal aid. Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko’s damning response: “One cannot win the war with blankets.”
George W. Bush
During their first meeting in 2001, Putin told President George W. Bush a story about a religious medallion his mother kept to protect her family. Afterwards, at the post-summit press conference, Bush said of Putin, affirmingly, “I was able to get a sense of his soul.”
In reality, Putin, the KGB operative, was exploiting and leveraging Bush 43’s religious beliefs. Just as Putin would later play on Trump’s ego, the Russian dictator had studied his target and played on Bush 43’s faith. This serves as a reminder that in dealing with a world that wishes us harm, Christ directs His followers to be as shrewd, as cunning, as ready vipers.
In an indication that he had learned what Putin really was, Bush 43 in the final year of his presidency urged NATO to accept the membership applications of Ukraine and Georgia—an effort blocked by Germany and France. Four months later, Putin invaded Georgia. He was deprived of his objective—toppling Georgia’s pro-Western government and taking Tbilisi—because Bush ordered the U.S. Air Force to transport thousands of Georgian troops from Iraq to Georgia.
Clinton
In June 1999, Putin was director of the Russian Security Council; he would replace Boris Yeltsin as president by the end of the year. But before then, in the middle of NATO’s efforts to protect Kosovo from Slobodan Milosevic’s war of ethnic cleansing, Putin nearly triggered a NATO-Russia conflict. Putin hatched a surprise deployment of Russian troops into an area where NATO peacekeepers were headed. Putin’s stunt offered a glimpse of what was to come, exposed fissures within NATO, and went largely unanswered by Washington.
Turning back to Ukraine, President Bill Clinton recently expressed remorse for pressuring Kiev to transfer its nuclear arsenal to Russia in 1994, in exchange for signing an agreement that committed all signatories—the U.S., Britain, Russia—“to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine” in the event of an attack. Of course, as a permanent UNSC member, Russia could always block such “action.”
“I feel a personal stake because I got them to agree to give up their nuclear weapons,” Clinton said. “They were afraid to give them up because they thought that’s the only thing that protected them from an expansionist Russia.”
The Ukrainians were right. The U.S.-U.K. failure to help Ukraine in 2014 set the stage for 2022. It also made the cause of nuclear non-proliferation harder. From allies such as South Korea and Japan, to enemies such as Iran and North Korea, Ukraine serves as an object lesson of the deterrent power of nuclear weapons—and the danger of not having them.
George H.W. Bush
On August 1, 1991, President George H.W. Bush traveled to Kiev and warned Ukrainian leaders against “suicidal nationalism.” Focused on stability, Gorbachev and U.S.-Soviet relations, he added that “freedom is not the same as independence.”
That speech didn’t age well. In fact, just 17 days after Bush 41’s visit to Kiev, Soviet hardliners would launch a coup aimed at salvaging Lenin’s artificial union. But the only thing their bungled coup did was accelerate the disintegration of the USSR—and the liberation of Ukraine and other captive nations. Before the end of August 1991, Ukraine would declare independence. That December, the Ukrainian people overwhelmingly ratified that declaration.
Doubtless, Bush 41’s words would reverberate in Moscow and Kiev.
Putin
Every president who served between 1991 and 2021 could have done or said something differently in relation to Ukraine and/or Putin. Yet blaming Bush 41’s words of caution, or Clinton’s desire to consolidate the USSR’s far-flung nuclear arsenal, or Bush 43’s misreading of Putin’s soul, or Obama’s defense cuts, or Trump’s diminution of NATO, or Biden’s debacle in Kabul, seems akin to blaming the police for not doing enough to prevent a crime, while absolving the criminal who actually commits the crime.
To be sure, it’s troubling that somewhere along the way, Americans began electing presidents who ignored the lessons of Munich, who abandoned peace through strength, who believed America could “lead from behind,” who viewed standing up for freedom and standing against thuggery as “a tremendous disservice…to humanity,” who sold soothing bromides about “nation building here at home,” who said it was prudent “to focus on ourselves.” But the blame for this war lies with Putin—not Biden or Trump, not Obama or Bush 43, not Clinton or Bush 41, not NATO or the EU, and certainly not Ukraine.
In his major statements about Ukraine, his up-is-down view of post-Cold War history, his gun-to-the-head December diktat, his labeling Ukraine Novorossyia, Putin made clear that he was focused on reconstituting the Russian Empire and that he rejected Ukraine as a sovereign nation-state. Put another way: As long as Ukraine was outside the protective shield of NATO, it was in Putin’s crosshairs (hence Bush 43’s efforts in 2008). As Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley observes, “Short of the commitment of U.S. military forces into Ukraine proper, I’m not sure he was deterrable.” Indeed, anything less than American-crewed armor on Ukrainian soil—an impossible sell in the Washington of 2009-21—wasn’t going to stop Putin from attempting his latter-day Anschluss.
Putin—not Washington—is to blame for this war. Because of his brutal means and awful ends, America has a moral duty and a strategic interest in helping the Ukrainian people secure what they define as victory.
The post Ukraine’s Blame Game appeared first on Providence.
Hamas calls for mass gathering on Temple Mount during Jerusalem Day, prompting fears the terrorist group could attack Israel during anniversary of city’s reunification.
By Pesach Benson, TPS
The Israeli security establishment is preparing for Jerusalem Day celebrations on Thursday amid Palestinian threats to disrupt an annual flag parade.
The flag march is an annual highlight of Jerusalem Day festivities, which celebrate the anniversary of the Israeli capital’s reunification during the Six-Day War of 1967. Every year, thousands of youths carrying Israeli flags march from downtown Jerusalem to the Old City.
Palestinians regularly accuse Israel of using the march to “Judaize” the city.
The parade passes through Damascus Gate and proceeds through the Old City to the Western Wall. Marchers do not go up to the adjacent Temple Mount.
Israel reportedly warned Hamas that it would retaliate powerfully to any rocket fire during Jerusalem Day.
More than 2,000 police officers have been assigned to secure the march while another 1,000 will be deployed at other celebrations in the capital.
Jerusalem District Police Commander Doron Turgeman said that police have contingency plans for all kinds of scenarios, including terrorist rocket fire.
On Tuesday, Hamas called on Arabs in eastern Jerusalem to gather at the Al Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount in large numbers for morning prayers.
The parade comes less than one week after Israel and Palestinian Islamic Jihad agreed on a ceasefire to end five days of conflict. During that time, Palestinian terror groups fired some 1,500 rockets at Israel. The parade and the Palestinian response to it will test the ceasefire.
Israeli political officials emphasize that Israel did not commit at any point to altering the route of the flag parade as part of its ceasefire. Palestinian sources told the Tazpit Press Service in recent days that Hamas does not want to bring Gaza into another conflict with Israel, but would instead consider responses within eastern Jerusalem.
Gaza terrorist groups reportedly have vowed to oppose any violation of the Israel-Hamas ceasefire reached in May 2021 following that month’s war.
Before Jerusalem Day in 2021, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed to change the route so that marchers would not pass through the Old City’s Muslim Quarter, but Hamas fired rockets, sparking an 11-day military operation in Gaza. During that time, Hamas and Islamic Jihad fired 4,400 rockets, killing 13 people inside Israel.
That war was initiated by Hamas firing two rockets at Jerusalem as that year’s flag march was about to begin.
The post Israeli security establishment gears up for Jerusalem Day amid Hamas threats appeared first on World Israel News.