Today we received another special blessing from Heaven/Shmayim:  It was a beautiful sunny day with some fluffy white clouds & some rain clouds.  Yesterday?s rain had washed our world free of dust.  The trees were so green.  The fall flowers were brilliant.  Even the air sparkled like new.

And now, back to reality.  I just returned from seeing the World Premiere of the movie ?Body & Soul: The State of the Jewish Nation?.  It was a brilliant ?tour de? force? with all my most favorite speakers, historians, experts, archeologists, quotes from the Torah, paintings of our past history & photos of our recent past history ? settling the Jewish Homeland as promised in the Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917, signed in the San Remo Treaty of April 25, 1920, ratified by the League of Nations in 1922 & never abrogated.  ALL the nations (including the Arab League) accepted ALL the League of Nations resolutions & treaties when the League of Nations became the United Nations.  I?ll bet the Arab & Muslim countries leaders & people don?t know that big fact.  I?ll bet Sec. of State John Kerry & Pres. Barack Hussein Obama don?t know that very big fact. 

I will try to transmit more later about the Movie & the amazing panel discussion held after it with Melanie Phillips moderating Yoram Hazony, President of the Herzl Institute; Robert Solomon Wistrich, Professor of European and Jewish history at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and the head of the University?s Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism; & Eugene Kontorovich Professor of International Law Northwestern University.  The Movie by itself & the Panel by itself were each worth a whole evening.  I?m still digesting tonight?s movie & discussion.  I took notes & recorded it on my Smartphone.  Hope it works.

Now, WHY do I still call these Diaries the Gaza War Diaries.  Because it?s not over.  See article #1 below.  Note the $5.4 Billion raised by the world to re-build Gaza (without demilitarizing Hamas)!  Over the Sukkot/Simchat Torah Chag I heard many stories about our soldiers who returned safely to their pregnant wives & about those who have made a miraculous recovery despite: one soldier survived a bullet that entered his ear & exited his eye!!??  He?s functioning, walking, talking ? will still need extensive rehab.  Another who has a piece of shrapnel lodged deep in his brain where they can?t remove it.  He is also functioning?like normal? I don?t know.  I?ll try to get more details.

1.AT UNHQ, MIN. YA?ALON BEGINS ?REAL? GAZA WAR  By Mark Langfan 2. WHAT THE ?TWO STATE SOLUTION? HAS TO DO WITH THE RISE OF ISLAMIC EXTREMISM: ZERO  3.Edelstein: ?We are Deciding Our Fate In This Country?4. Day of the Siege by Citizen Warrior 5. Poll: Vast majority of Israeli Jews oppose Palestinian state 6. Obama defines US as ?Muslim Country?7. Why Is U.S. Helping To Rebuild Gaza? Rebuilding Gaza for the next attack  By Cal Thomas 8. Israel?s Challenges in the Eastern Mediterranean by Efraim Inbar 9. Obama Ebola Laxness Ignores US-Funded Studies by Mark Langfan EBOLA-GATE HAS BEEN UNCOVERED.

With all this very bad & some good news, I say:  Good nite.

Have a great night & day, All the very best, 

Gail/Geula/Savta/Savta Raba/Mom

Check our Website:  WinstonIsraelNews.com

At UNHQ, Min. Ya?alon Begins ?Real? Gaza War  By Mark Langfan, A7 UN Reporter     Analysis: Defense Minister will have to describe to Ban Ki-moon the war crimes Hamas committed, and defend Israel against false claims.

First Publish: 10/20/2014, 10:25 PM

Yaalon with Ban  Sarah Brittany Somerset/UN

Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya?alon, who is on a five-day visit to the US, came to the United Nations? headquarters in New York City Monday to begin to fight the ultimate battle of the Hamas-Israel War that began in the summer of 2014.

Now, long after the guns fell silent in Gaza, Ya?alon has perhaps the toughest of all fights: explaining to an extremely skeptical and biased United Nations that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) fought the Gaza War in accordance with ?international law.?

Here, on a beautiful, crisp, sunny autumn day, on the 38th Floor of the UN Secretariat Building with spectacular views, thousands of miles from Israel and Hamas, Ya?alon first shook hands with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. Then, as is the custom, he signed the guest book. And then, both men sat down across from each other at the UN Executive Board Room Conference Table, flanked by their aides.

The Secretary General didn?t waste any time starting the discussion. And it is here, in the peaceful serenity of New York City, protected by the full might of the United States of America, Ya?alon will have to describe the terrible war crimes Hamas committed against Israel and against its own Gazan citizens, and defend Israel against the myriad of false claims of war crimes.

Ya?alon will have to explain Israel?s position to Ban Ki-moon, who already called the ruins of Gaza, ?beyond description.?

Israel can?t just win its battles on the actual battlefield with a hardened Islamist enemy armed by the entire Islamic world. Israel must also win its battles on the diplomatic battlefield with even more hardened, biased world diplomats from the entire world.

It doesn?t particularly matter that the UN?s buildings in Gaza were being used as missile warehouses. The fact that Israel?s army is the most moral army on earth doesn?t matter, since Israel?s army is expected to be perfect ? or, the one mistake made in the fog of war will be used against Israel to extract concessions that will ensure the next war.

Signing guest book. Mark Langfan

At UNHQ, Min. Ya?alon Begins ?Real? Gaza War  By Mark Langfan

Palestinians seek 2016 Israeli withdrawal from West Bank

Palestinian U.N. ambassador says Palestinians want U.N. Security Council to vote on resolution before end of year that would set November 2016 as deadline for Israeli pullout from Palestinian territories ? Israel: Palestinians avoiding a real dialogue.By The Associated Press and Israel Hayom Staff

The Palestinian U.N. ambassador said Friday his government wants the U.N. Security Council to vote on a resolution before the end of the year that would set November 2016 as the deadline for Israeli troops to withdraw from all Palestinian territories.

Riyad Mansour said Friday that if the resolution is defeated ? which is almost certain because of opposition from Israel?s closest ally the United States and others ? the Palestinians have other options.  ?This is not going to be an open-ended exercise,? he said. ?The main option is to go with a vote.?

Palestinian officials said Thursday they have seven ?yes? votes in the 15-member Security Council and are seeking additional support. A minimum of nine votes is needed for approval, and then the measure can be vetoed by one of the five permanent members, including the United States.

The draft resolution is an expression of Palestinian frustration with the repeated failure of U.S.-led negotiations with Israel on the terms of an independent Palestinian state. The last round broke down in April, after nine months of fruitless talks in which the two sides couldn?t agree on the ground rules.

Mansour said the Palestinians will not go back ?to the same kind of negotiations that have led us nowhere for more than 20 years.?

U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power, when asked earlier this month about a deadline for an Israeli pullout, said that the United States strongly believes the only solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is through negotiations between the two parties.

Israel?s U.N. Ambassador Ron Prosor said when the draft was first circulated that by pursuing the resolution the Palestinians were ?bypassing negotiations by taking unilateral action? and ?avoiding a real dialogue.?  Mansour said the Palestinians are committed to voting on the resolution and ?the centerpiece of our resolution is the time frame.?  He said one option if the draft resolution is defeated is for the Palestinians to join more treaties and conventions and the International Criminal Court.

When the U.N. General Assembly recognized a state of Palestine in the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem in October 2012, the Palestinians gained the right to seek membership in U.N. institutions and treaty bodies and possibly take their complaints over Israeli settlement-building on occupied land to the ICC, which is independent. Earlier this year, it joined 15 international treaties and conventions.

?We want to create legal facts on the ground that we exist as a state,? Mansour said, adding that joining additional treaties, conventions and the ICC will further ?acknowledge that a Palestinian state does exist.?

Palestine joined Paris-based UNESCO in 2011 before becoming a U.N. observer state, leading to a U.S. cutoff of funding to the educational, scientific and cultural agency under a U.S. law that bans support for any U.N. agency with ?Palestine? as a member.   Mansour said the Palestinians may also go to the U.N. General Assembly where resolutions are not legally binding but there are no vetoes.

FREEMAN CENTER BROADCAST October 20, 2014

For Zion?s sake I will not hold my peace & for Jerusalem?s sake I will not rest.? Isaiah 62

FREEMAN CENTER FOR STRATEGIC STUDIES P.O. Box 35661 * Houston, Texas 77235-5661
* E-mail: bernards@sbcglobal.net OUR WEB SITE < www.freeman.org >

Edelstein: ?We are Deciding Our Fate In This Country? By Ido Ben Porat, Cynthia Blank

More Israelis move into the Shiloach neighborhood near the City of David. MK Edelstein tours and blesses new houses.   First Publish: Arutz Sheva ? 10/20/2014, 6:43 PM

Home purchased by Jews in City of David Arieh King ? Facebook

Knesset speaker Yuli Edelstein (Likud) toured the City of David Monday. The City of David, considered the heart of the Jewish capital in Biblical times, is located just south of the Old City of Jerusalem.

The tour followed Sunday night?s headlining entry of nine Jewish families into homes in Jerusalem?s Shiloach (Silwan) neighborhood, located adjacent to the City of David. The homes were purchased from Arabs.

Jerusalem Councilman Arieh King told Arutz Sheva on Monday morning that the families took residency in nine housing units in ?Beit Ovadia? and ?Beit Frumkin,? located in the ?Yemenite Village? area of Shiloach.

The village was founded by Jewish immigrants from Yemen in the 1880s, who were later expelled by the British in 1938 following violent Arab rioting.

While visiting the new residents of Shiloach, Edelstein affixed a mezuzah to the door of one of the houses, before reciting the blessing on it.  ?Exactly 84 years ago, the White Paper was published, restricting the sale of land to Jews. Yet we prevailed and today, it is only us who put our fate in our country, especially in Jerusalem the capital,? Edelstein said.

Three weeks ago, dozens of Jews settled in six houses in the City of David, on the other side of Shiloach. The buildings were legally purchased by an American company and are owned by Jews, but Arab residents claimed that the houses belonged to three veteran Arab families, sparking protest.  During the move, several Arabs attempted to enter one of the Jewish homes by force. Rioters then began attacking police. The Arabs threw rocks and fireworks at security forces, who were forced to calm the crowd using riot dispersal means.

The Ateret Cohanim organization, who aims to strengthen the Jewish presence in Jerusalem, particularly in eastern Jerusalem neighborhoods, was the force behind this latest housing acquisition.

Edelstein: ?We are Deciding Our Fate In This Country?

WHAT THE ?TWO STATE SOLUTION? HAS TO DO WITH THE RISE OF ISLAMIC EXTREMISM: ZERO  By Khaled Abu Toameh   The Gatestone Institute:  October 20th, 2014

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry?s claim that the lack of a ?two-state solution? has fueled the rise of the Islamic State [IS] terrorist group reinforces how clueless the U.S. Administration is about what is happening in the Arab and Islamic countries.

peaking at a State Department ceremony marking the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha [sacrifice of Ishmael by Avraham GW].  Kerry said that the resumption of peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians was vital in the fight against Islamic extremism, including Islamic State.

?Forget ISIS? let?s talk more about a Palestinian state.? Left, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry greets U.S. Special Representative to Muslim Communities Shaarik Zafar during an Eid al-Adha reception on Oct. 16, 2014 at the U.S. Department of State in Washington, D.C. (Image source: State Dept.)

?There wasn?t a leader I met with in the region who didn?t raise with me spontaneously the need to try to get peace between Israel and the Palestinians, because it was a cause of recruitment and of street anger and agitation,? Kerry said. ?People need to understand the connection of that. And it has something to do with the humiliation and denial and absence of dignity.?

The U.S. State Department later denied that Kerry had made the statement attributed to him.

Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf told reporters that Kerry?s comments wborders become more porous, armed groups and terrorists gain greater freedom of action. Moreover, security services that dealt with terrorism have been negatively affected by domestic politics and have lost some of their efficiency. Sinai has turned into a transit route for Iranian weapons to Hamas and a base for terrorist attacks against Israel. Hamas has even set up rocket production lines in Sinai in an effort to protect its assets, believing Jerusalem would not strike targets inside Egypt for fear of undermining the bilateral relations.^[34] Syria has also become a haven for many Islamist groups as result of the civil war.

Furthermore, as weakened or failed states lose control over their security apparatus, national arsenals of conventional and nonconventional arms have become vulnerable, which may result in the emergence of increasingly well-armed, politically dissatisfied groups seeking to harm Israel. For example, following the fall of Qaddafi, Libyan SA-7 anti-air missiles and anti-tank rocket-propelled grenades reached Hamas in Gaza.^[35]Similarly, in the event of a Syrian regime collapse, Damascus?s advanced arsenal, including chemical weapons, shore-to-ship missiles, air defense systems, and ballistic missiles of all types could end up in the hands of Hezbollah or other radical elements.^[36]

Salafi jihadist groups have reportedly attacked the Suez Canal several times. In 2013, an Egyptian court sentenced 26 members of an alleged terrorist group to death over plans to target ships in the canal. In 2014, Egyptian authorities again tightened security around the canal following fears that Muslim Brotherhood supporters of Mohamed Morsi might attack ships in the waterway in protest over his trial.

The Iranian presence: The decline in U.S. power, the timidity of the Europeans, and the turmoil in the Arab world have facilitated Iranian encroachment of the East Mediterranean. Indeed, Tehran?s attempts to boost its naval presence in the Mediterranean are part of an ambitious program to build a navy capable of projecting power far from Iran?s borders.^[38] Tehran would like to be able to supply its Mediterranean allies: Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Gaza. Entering the Mediterranean also enhances Iran?s access to Muslim Balkan states, namely Albania, Bosnia, and Kosovo, giving Tehran a clear stake in the outcome of the Syrian civil war. Assad?s hold on power is critical for the ?Shiite Crescent? from the Persian Gulf to the Levant, which would enhance Iranian influence in the Middle East and the East Mediterranean. Tehran has also been strengthening naval cooperation with Moscow, viewed as a potential partner in efforts to limit and constrain U.S. influence.^[39]Finally, terrorist activities could adversely affect the navigation through the Suez Canal, an important choke point. Salafi jihadist groups have attacked the canal several times already.^[37]

Tehran?s attempts to boost its naval presence in the Mediterranean are part of a program to build a navy capable of projecting power far from Iran?s borders.

Conscious of these threats, the Israel Defense Forces chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, has approved the navy?s plan to add four offshore patrol vessels.^[40] Israeli defense circles hope that Israel?s expanding navy, combined with continuous improvement of land and air assets and increasing cooperation with Greece and Cyprus, will give pause to any regional actor that would consider turning the Mediterranean Sea into the next great field of battle. Indeed, the Israeli navy is now preparing to defend the gas field offshore of Israel.^[41]Wars over gas fields: The discovery of gas fields in the East Mediterranean could potentially escalate tensions in this increasingly volatile region. Competing claims to the gas fields by Israel?s former ally Turkey as well as by its neighbor Lebanon (still in a de jure state of war) have precipitated a buildup of naval forces in the Levant basin by a number of states, including Russia. Israel?s wells and the naval presence protecting them also offer new targets at sea to its longstanding, non-state enemies, Hezbollah and Hamas.

The future role of Russia in these developments is not clear. Some analysts believe that Moscow is interested primarily in marketing the region?s energy riches. Securing gas reserves in the East Mediterranean will also help Moscow safeguard its dominant position as a natural gas supplier to western Europe, which could be challenged by new competitors in the region. Yet, delays and disruptions in moving gas to Europe might further strengthen Russia?s role as a major energy supplier to Europe and keep prices high, which is beneficial for Moscow. Moreover, as the Ukraine crisis indicated, geopolitics still is a dominant factor in Russian decision-making.

Conclusion

Stability in the East Mediterranean can no longer be taken for granted as U.S. forces are retreating. Europe, an impotent international actor, cannot fill the resulting political vacuum. Russia under Putin is beefing up its naval presence. Growing Islamist freedom of action is threatening the region. Turkey, no longer a true ally of the West, has its own Mediterranean agenda and the military capability to project force to attain its goals. So far, the growing Russian assertiveness has not changed the course of Turkish foreign policy. The disruptive potential of failed states, the access of Iran to Mediterranean waters, and interstate competition for energy resources are also destabilizing the region. But it is not clear whether the Western powers, particularly the United States, are aware of the possibility of losing the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea to Russia or radical Islam, or are
preparing in any way to forestall such a scenario. U.S. naiveté and European gullibility could become extremely costly in strategic terms.

The Israeli perspective on the East Mediterranean region is colored by its vital need to maintain the freedom of maritime routes for its foreign trade and to provide security for its newly found gas fields. While its strategic position has generally improved in the Middle East, Jerusalem sees deterioration in the environment in the East Mediterranean. A growing Russian presence and Turkish assertiveness are inimical to Israel?s interests. Developments along the shores of the East Mediterranean also decrease stability and enhance the likelihood of more Islamist challenges.

In civilizational terms, the East Mediterranean has served as a point of contention in the past between Persia and the ancient Greeks and between the Ottomans and Venetians. It is the location where the struggle between East and West takes place. After the Cold War, the borders of the West moved eastward. Now, they could easily move in the other direction.

Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat (BESA) Center for Strategic Studies, is professor of political studies at Bar-Ilan University and a Shilman-Ginsburg Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

[1] Samuel P. Huntington, ?The Clash of Civilizations?? Foreign Affairs, Summer 1993, pp. 22-49.

[2] For more, see Seth Cropsey, Mayday: The Decline of American Naval Supremacy (New York: Overlook Duckworth, 2013).

[3] Jon B. Alterman and Haim Malka, ?Shifting Eastern Mediterranean Geometry,? The Washington Quarterly, Summer 2012, pp. 111-25.

[4] Efraim Inbar, The Israeli-Turkish Entente (London: King?s College Mediterranean Program, 2001); Ofra Bengio, The Turkish-Israeli Relationship. Changing Ties of Middle Eastern Outsiders (New York: Palgrave, 2004).

[5] Rajan Menon and S. Enders Wimbush, ?The US and Turkey: End of an Alliance?? Survival, Summer 2007, pp. 129-44; Efraim Inbar, ?Israeli-Turkish Tensions and Their International Ramifications,? Orbis, Winter 2011, pp. 135-9; Ahmet Davuto?lu, Stratejik Derinlik: Türkiye?nin Uluslararas? Konumu(Istanbul: Küre Yay?nlar?, 2001).

[6] Tarik Ozuglu, ?Turkey?s Eroding Commitment to NATO: From Identity to Interests,? The Washington Quarterly, Summer 2012, pp. 153-64; Burak Ege Bekdil, ?Allies Intensify Pressure on Turkey over China Missile Deal,? The Defense News, Feb. 24, 2014, p. 8.

[7] Liad Porat, ?The Muslim Brotherhood and Egypt-Israel Peace,? Mideast Security and Policy Studies, no. 102, BESA Center for Strategic Studies, Ramat Gan, Aug. 1, 2013.

[8] Tally Helfont, ?Slashed US Aid to Egypt and the Future of the Bilateral Relations,? Institute for National Strategic Studies, Washington, D.C., Oct. 13, 2013.

[9] Interview with senior Israeli official, Jerusalem, Apr. 7, 2013.

^[10] Daniel W. Drezner, ?Does Obama Have a Grand Strategy? Why We Need Doctrines in Uncertain Times,?Foreign Affairs, July/Aug. 2011, p. 58.

^[11] Eitan Gilboa, ?The United States and the Arab Spring,? in Efraim Inbar, ed., The Arab Spring, Democracy and Security: Domestic and Regional Ramifications (London: Routledge, 2013), pp. 51-74.

[12] Eyal Zisser, ?The Failure of Washington?s Syria Policy,? Middle East Quarterly, Fall 2013, pp. 59-66.

[13] ?Pivot to the Pacific? The Obama Administration?s ?Rebalancing? toward Asia,? Congressional Research Service, Washington, D.C., Mar. 28, 2012.

[14] Seth Cropsey, ?All Options Are Not on the Table: A Briefing on the US Mediterranean Fleet,? World Affairs Journal, Mar. 16, 2011; Steve Cohen, ?America?s Incredible Shrinking Navy,? The Wall Street Journal, Mar. 20, 2014.

[15] Florence Gaub, ?A Libyan Recipe for Disaster,? Survival, Feb.-Mar. 2014, pp. 101-20.

[16] Thomas R. Fedyszyn, ?The Russian Navy ?Rebalances? to the Mediterranean,? U.S. Naval Institute, Annapolis, Dec. 2013.

[17] Ibid.

[18] InCyprus.com, Jan. 11, 2014.

[19] Interviews with senior officials, Nicosia, Oct. 10, 2012.

[20] Zvi Magen, ?The Russian Fleet in the Mediterranean: Exercise or Military Operation?? Institute for National Strategic Studies, Washington, D.C., Jan. 29, 2013.

[21] Igor Khrestin and John Elliott, ?Russia and the Middle East,? Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2007, pp. 21-7.

[22] The Jerusalem Post, May 12, 2010.

[23] Thane Gustafson, ?Putin?s Petroleum Problem,? Foreign Affairs, Nov./Dec. 2012, pp. 83-96.

[24] United Press International, Jan. 16, 2014.

[25] For example, see, Gary Lakes, ?Oil, Gas and Energy Security,? European Rim Policy and Investment Council (ERPIC, Larnaca, Cyprus), Oct. 23, 2009.

[26] ?Turkey,? Institute for National Strategic Studies, Washington, D.C., Dec. 24, 2012, pp. 19-25.

[27]The Jerusalem Post, Feb. 4, 2014.

[28] Bloomberg News Service (New York), Aug. 2011.

[29] The Jerusalem Post, Sept. 10, 2013.

[30] Ibid., Aug. 2, 2011.

[31] The Times of Israel (Jerusalem), Mar. 25, 2014.

[32] Arutz Sheva (Beit El and Petah Tikva), Nov. 25, 2013.

[33]Haaretz (Tel Aviv), July 2, 2011.

[34] The Jerusalem Post, Dec. 11, 2011.

[35] Reuters, Aug. 29, 2011.

[36] Defense News (Springfield, Va.), Dec. 12, 2011.

[37] USA Today, Nov. 4, 2013.

[38] Shaul Shay, ?Iran?s New Strategic Horizons at Sea,? Arutz Sheva, July 30, 2012; Agence France-Presse, Jan. 17, 2013.

[39] Michael Eisenstadt and Alon Paz, ?Iran?s Evolving Maritime Presence,?Policy Watch, no. 2224, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Washington, D.C., Mar. 13, 2014.

[40] Israel Hayom (Tel Aviv), July 10, 2012.

[41] Defense News (Springfield, Va.), Feb. 27, 2012.

Related Topics:  Israel & Zionism  |  Efraim Inbar  |  Fall 2014 MEQThis text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete and accurate information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.

FREEMAN CENTER FOR STRATEGIC STUDIES
P.O. Box 35661 * Houston, Texas 77235-5661
* E-mail: bernards@sbcglobal.net OUR WEB SITE < www.freeman.org >

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/186140#.VD0M6EvOX1o

Obama Ebola Laxness Ignores US-Funded Studies by Mark Langfan

A US government-funded September 2, 2014 scientific quantitative transmission analysis study (the Spread-Risk Ebola Study) wholly contradicts and refutes Obama?s statements on September 16 that the chances of a US Ebola breakout are ?extremely low,? Arutz Sheva has discovered.

The study also contradicts the anti-travel ban claims made by the US, UN, WHO and CDC.

The Spread-Risk Ebola Study was co-funded by the United States Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), and the Models of Infectious Disease Agency Study agency (MIDAS), a department of the United States? National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS).

Another US government-funded scientific study, published on September 29, 2014, (the Travel-Risk Ebola Study) was funded by a grant from the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Fogarty International Center, National Institutes of Health (NIH), also further contradicts and refutes the WHO/UN/CDC anti-travel ban stance, and explicitly traces the likelihood of the transmission of the Ebola virus from Ebola hot spots to other travel-based connected areas.

Both studies have extremely illustrative graphics that most adequately explain what they concluded.

Chronology:

     September 2, 2014, the DTRA and MIDAS co-funded Spread-Risk Ebola Study was published. Based on current air travel between the US and West Africa, it predicted 25% ?probability of Ebola virus disease case importation? into the United States in between 3 and 6 weeks?s time. The date from which the probability of disease importation was 25% was named as September 22, 2014.

     September 16, Obama remarked at the US Center for Disease Control (CDC): ?First and foremost, I want the American people to know that our experts, here at the CDC and across our government, agree that the chances of an Ebola outbreak here in the United States are extremely low.?

     September 16, President Obama pledged 3,000 US troops to Liberia to oversee Ebola centers in Liberia.

     September 20, two days before the target date by which the Spread-Risk Ebola Study predicted a 25% chance that Ebola will be imported into the United States, Thomas Eric Duncan, who was infected with Ebola, landed in Dallas airport from Liberia. Duncan was to die on October 8.

     September 28, Duncan was admitted to the hospital.

     September 29, the US DHS-NIH-funded Travel-Risk Ebola Study concluded a high correlation between the mobility of population between locations and the transmission of Ebola.

     October 8, despite receiving high-quality intensive care in a United States hospital, Duncan died.

     October 12, 15 days after Duncan was first admitted to the hospital in which he died, the nurse who cared for Duncan became the first person to contract Ebola within the United States. She became infected ?despite wearing protective gear.? Ebola is supposed to have an incubation period of 2-21 days.

     October 13, Thomas Frieden, Director of the US Center for Disease Control (CDC), stated in the aftermath of the Ebola transmission to the nurse that ?it is possible other people could have been infected as well.? And he added, ?we have to ?rethink? the way we address Ebola infection control, because even a single infection is unacceptable.?  ?We need to consider the possibility that there could be additional cases, particularly among the health-care workers that cared for [Duncan] when he was so ill,? Frieden said. ?We would not be surprised if we did see additional cases in the health-care workers who also provided care to [Duncan].?

The DTRA-NIH Spread-Risk Ebola Study was published on September 2, 2014. This means its results were internally distributed to the US agencies that funded it well before its ?publish? date.

The Spread-Risk Ebola Study first did a baseline Ebola transmission analysis based on current airplane traffic patterns:

Based on those patterns, the researchers concluded that based on current airline traffic there was a 25% chance Ebola would be imported into the United States by September 22:

The Spread-Risk Ebola Study also did a specific additional analysis of an 80% airline traffic reduction scenario that showed ?a considerable reduction of the probability of case importation? and delayed the 25% probability of importation by a full month.

The authors did not perform a 100% airline reduction analysis that would have likely shown a greater, even more dramatic delay in the importation of Ebola into the United States.

The Spread-Risk Study also did not model a ?mushroom? analysis of what the exponential growth of Ebola in the United States would be with or without a total travel ban. Clearly, based on the study?s primary results, the anticipated ?mushroom? of United States? Ebola cases would likely be exponential without a travel ban as compared to the total travel ban scenario. Based on the study, if a total travel ban was to be imposed, there would a substantial delay in the onset of any Ebola pandemic in the United States so as to allow for containment and counter-measures to have been developed.

The Spread-Risk Ebola study does reference a possible, but un-quantified, effect that travel restrictions ?may? have in hampering ?the deployment of personnel and support in the region, ultimately creating a counter productive effect in the [West African] containment effort.?

But shockingly, the Spread-Risk Ebola Study explicitly admitted that, ?[h]owever, in the [DTRA-NIH co-funded] modeling we do not consider the possibility of cluster importation due to household members traveling together or because of direct transmission in the plane.?

In other words, hundreds of plane-passengers on one plane could be infected because they were sitting next to the Ebola-infected person, and/or went to the bathroom and sat on a toilet in the plane were the Ebola virus is passed through the urine of an Ebola-infected person. And yet, the US-funded study failed to factor in the ?cluster? of cases that could very likely occur ?because of direct transmission in the plane.?

Another fatal assumption to the Spread-Risk Ebola study was that it explicitly based its statistical analysis on a previously reported elongated and erroneous ?average incubation period [of Ebola] of 1?2 weeks,?when WHO recently reported the incubation period of Ebola to be ?2 to 21 days.?

This difference could dramatically affect the statistical analysis in a negative direction, since Ebola-infected person can only infect other people after the incubation period. Hence, a variation from ?7 days? to ?2 days? before the Ebola-infected person becomes ?infective? in terms of transmission calculations is an enormous statistical difference.

The DHS-NIH Travel-Risk Ebola Study, published on September 29, directly tied ?mobility? between infected and uninfected areas with the risk of transmission of Ebola between those areas. The authors innovatively used cell-phones locaters or Call-Detail-Records (?CDR?) to correlate the mobility of the populations with the likelihood of the transmission of Ebola.

The Travel-Risk Ebola Study concluded a shocking and startling finding:

?The benefits of CDRs [call-detail-records] in the context of the current Ebola outbreak are clear. The rapid spread of the virus within Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia, and to Nigeria and Senegal, has been driven by local and regional travel. Epidemiological models of the spatial spread of Ebola, both retrospectively and for the purposes of prediction, rely on estimates of the volumes and flows of traffic between populations. This allows modelers to assess the likely routes of infected individuals between populations, with imported cases sparking new outbreaks or augmenting local transmission.?

Since DTRA, DHS, MIDAS, and NIH all co-funded both the Spread-Risk Ebola Study and Travel-Risk Ebola Study, then it is clear that as of September 2, the agencies knew of the importance and urgency of an immediate imposition of a travel-ban from West Africa. But, President Obama, the United States, the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations (UN), have, nevertheless, adamantly maintained an ?anti-travel-ban? position.

EBOLA-GATE HAS BEEN UNCOVERED.