For nearly two thousand years, the return of the Jewish people to their ancestral homeland appeared almost inconceivable. Jews were dispersed across continents, governed by foreign powers, divided by languages and cultures, Jerusalem was beyond their political control, and the Temple had disappeared from the physical landscape of Jewish life. Hebrew survived primarily as a language of prayer, scholarship, and sacred texts rather than as the everyday language of a sovereign people. Yet within little more than a century, an extraordinary transformation occurred. Jews returned to the Land of Israel in unprecedented numbers, Hebrew became a modern spoken language, a Jewish state was established, Jerusalem came under Israeli control, and Israel developed substantial military, economic, and technological power. The historical significance of these developments is indisputable. Their theological meaning, however, remains a matter of interpretation. The question is not whether modern Israel "proves" biblical prophecy—it cannot. The more interesting question is whether the modern return of the Jewish people creates a historical reality that can reasonably be read through the framework of the biblical prophets. This distinction is essential. History can establish what happened; it cannot establish, by historical methodology alone, whether those events reflect divine intention. That belongs to theology and faith. Yet the relationship between historical events and ancient prophetic texts deserves serious examination. The Book of Ezekiel provides one of the most striking examples. In its visions, Israel's restoration to its land is associated with national consolidation and prosperity, followed by the confrontation identified with Gog and Magog. The sequence invites comparison with modern history: the Jewish people returned to the land, established sovereignty, developed a powerful economy and military, and only within this new reality entered an era of large-scale regional confrontation.

In the past month I have been speaking out more publicly (mainly via LinkedIn, my only real social media). About what's going on in Iran, immigration, Islamism and covid. Nothing extreme, nothing hateful, I care about love and truth. I tried to write everything in a good and respectful way, however I got into some 1-1 discussions with people who seemed more 'bad faith' or had despicable opinions, for example those praising the hangings, so I called out those people. This is what I experienced: 1. I felt a big relief and really aligned that I spoke about what I believed in is important. 2. I felt (and still feel) fear of being judged and that people will reject or leave me. What does this mean for my business? Will people hire me? And what does it mean socially? No one in my network liked any of my messages, and 5 people have removed the connection with me on LinkedIn. However, I do not want to live in fear and let it govern me. Armin said (paraphrasing) that if you do not get any hate for a long time that you are probably not expressing important things. Something like that. I totally resonate with that. So yeah I want to be able to deal with this, but it is stressful. 3. It was a good learning experience. The way I dealt with the discussions on LinkedIn now compared to three weeks ago is different. I will now always stay respectful (instead of 90% of the time), not insult them. You lower yourself by doing that. Even when people deserve some harsh words, I do not think this really works on a public forum. Curious if you agree with me or not. Also I am sharpening my ideas and getting to know more about what other people think. Being in this place also helps for that even more so. Anyways, if I have to choose between living with integrity and being hated by 90% of people. I have heard integrity defined as still saying and doing what is right even when everyone in the room is against you. I want to choose the first and I hope I am strong enough to keep doing that. Hopefully with less hate then 90%! I do not think it will be that extreme but you never now, close to NL in the UK you can get arrested for a wrong tweet. I think this is the reason why many people don't speak up, for all of these fears I lay out, and this is why you get a silent majority.

3 - Aug. 9, 2026 All the Arab countries love and believe in Nuclear technology. Of course it is not to produce nuclear bombs. ☠️💀 https://youtu.be/-TljzryYq5c

2 - Aug. 9, 2026 Aditya Raghunath, Mon, August 3, 2026 at 6:17 PM EDT, from The Street Chevron is looking at a way to move oil out of the Middle East without ever touching the Strait of Hormuz. CEO Mike Wirth confirmed the energy behemoth is studying a cross-border pipeline concept that would carry crude north through Iraq, then on to either Syria or Turkey, before reaching the Mediterranean Sea. The idea shows how seriously the industry is treating a chokepoint that has rattled global energy markets for most of 2026. The plan surfaced during Chevron's (CVX) second-quarter earnings call on July 31, when Wirth answered a question about the company's growing footprint in Iraq. It builds on comments Wirth made weeks earlier at the Bernstein Strategic Decisions Conference, where he laid out just how exposed the world's oil supply is to a single waterway. Strait of Hormuz key for Chevron stock The Strait of Hormuz is one of the most important shipping lanes on the planet. Roughly 20% of the world's oil and 20% of its liquefied natural gas typically pass through it. "The world uses in round numbers about 100 million barrels of oil a day," said Wirth, explaining the math in blunt terms at the Bernstein conference in May. "Twenty percent of that typically flows through the Strait of Hormuz," he added. When conflict disrupted the region earlier this year, that flow did not stop completely. Some barrels moved around it through the Red Sea or the port of Fujairah. But the world still lost an estimated 12 million to 13 million barrels a day of supply, according to Wirth. That kind of disruption is precisely what a new pipeline route would help avoid. The Iraq pipeline concept, explained Chevron has been deepening its relationship with Iraq's government this year. The company is advancing toward operating West Qurna 2 and Nasiriyah, two fields with massive resource potential that LUKOIL stepped away from. On the July earnings call, Wirth described a pipeline framework tied to that entry.

🇩🇪 | In Germany, a group of FED-UP police officers, tired of putting up with a rowdy pro-Hamas activist, picked him up and took him into the police van to send him to the station; the guy cried for help, but no one could do anything. See? It's not hard to arrest troublemakers, is it? https://x.com/liberfach0/status/2085901649118155260?s=46&t=gT6uLhaVod8uwzT4p6povA