Top Left image: Yemen army – Source, Top Right image Yemen military illustration – Source, Bottom Left image Saudi Mohammed bin Salman with Jeffrey Epstein – source: The Epstein Files, Bottom Right image Saudi Mohammed bin Salman with Donald Trump in the White House – Source.

by Brian Shilhavy
Health Impact News

The Iran War drastically changed at the end of last week, as Yemen’s Ansarullah-led Armed Forces (Houthis) took control of the country’s western coastline, capturing key positions overlooking the Bab al-Mandab Strait, including the coastal city of Mokha and strategic islands in and around the waterway, and they are now effectively controlling traffic in the Red Sea.

As far as I can tell, this was a complete surprise to everyone, especially to Saudi Arabia and the United States.

It forced the U.S. corporate media to report this, and it dominated the news stream until the fake “AI is going to destroy humanity if we don’t do something about it” narrative took control of the news stream this past weekend.

Saudi Arabia, who has been at war with Yemen since 2014 with the help of the U.S. and using U.S. military weapons, was forced to shut down their East-West oil pipeline, which was allowing Saudi Arabia to bypass the Strait of Hormuz to be able to get oil out of their country.

This pipeline in Saudi Arabia reportedly transports about 4% to 5% of the global oil supply.

Saudi Arabia is now in panic mode, and has reportedly pleaded with the U.S. to help them and start bombing the Yemen forces who have taken control of the Red Sea.

However, it appears that Saudi Arabia never got the memo about one of Trump’s objectives in the Iran War, which was to let Iran destroy the Gulf Nations’ ability to control oil prices through OPEC, while at the same time seizing Venezuela oil amid plans to make  America the center of oil sales around the world.

Trump’s response to Saudi Arabia: sorry, you’re on your own.

Scoop: MBS urged Trump to strike Houthis amid Red Sea threat

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) called President Trump twice Thursday, urging him to launch strikes against the Houthis as the Iran-backed group closed in on a vital Red Sea chokepoint, two U.S. officials told Axios.

Trump declined, and U.S. officials stressed the administration has no plans to intervene directly against the Houthis for now.

Source.

Of course, even if the U.S. did want to stop Yemen’s military and protect Saudi Arabia’s interests, it is doubtful that they would even be able to do so, given the depletion of their weapons and military assets as Iran continues to control the Strait of Hormuz.

This very well could be the demise of Saudi Arabia.

Image source.

And if the Yemen takeover of the Red Sea turns the tide overall in the war against Iran, what will the Evangelical Christians do who are so positive that this war was sanctioned by God, and was to hasten the return of Jesus Christ?

Could this also be the start of the decline of Christian Zionism as well when they realize that the U.S. cannot defeat Iran and force the return of Jesus Christ after all?

The U.S. and Saudi Arabia’s War Against Yemen for Over a Decade – The Genocide that Has Been Overshadowed by the Palestinian Genocide

Yemen children in refugee camps. Image source.

While estimates of how many people have died in the Yemen conflict with Saudi Arabia, including children, most of whom have died from starvation due to the U.S.-Saudi blockade on their ports, varies, the number is significant, and probably rivals the number of people killed among the Israeli Palestinians, as well as the number of dead Lebanese people killed by the U.S. and Israel.

This was published in 2018, and the situation is obviously far worse today.

YEMEN: 85,000 CHILDREN MAY HAVE DIED FROM STARVATION SINCE START OF WAR

Using data compiled by the UN, Save the Children evaluated mortality rates for untreated cases of Severe Acute Malnutrition (SAM) in children under five years. Using a conservative estimate, the humanitarian aid agency discovered that approximately 84,701 children with SAM may have died between April 2015 and October 2018.[i]

After almost four years since the brutal conflict in Yemen escalated the UN says that up to 14 million people are at risk of famine. That number has increased dramatically since the Saudi and Emirati-led coalition imposed a month-long blockade of Yemen just over a year ago.[ii]

Since then, commercial imports of food through Hodeidah port have reduced by more than 55,000 metric tonnes a month. That’s enough to meet the needs of 4.4 million people, including 2.2 million children[iii]. Any further decline in imports could likely lead directly to famine.

Source.

Barak Obama with Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia in 2016. Source.

Like so many other stories of unrest in the Middle East, the one in Yemen follows an all-too-familiar path that I am sure ultimately leads back to the U.S. and the “intelligence” agencies like the CIA and Mossad who control world politics ensuring that candidates friendly to the Zionist Epstein agenda rise to power.

The rationale, as it has been used so many times, was to overthrow “dictatorships” and alleged “ruthless” rulers who had ruled for long period of times and replace them with “pro-democracy” leaders, and always ending in disaster for the local populations.

It was this same rationale that took down leaders such as Muammar al-Qaddafi in Libya, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and even more recently Bashar al-Assad in Syria, all of whom were replaced by pro-Western leaders aligned with the U.S. (and by proxy, Israel).

What most Americans do not realize, is that while these “ruthless dictators” were portrayed as evil by the U.S., they were very popular in their own countries, and most of them were even elected in landslides, while the U.S. declared those elections “rigged.”

Imagine the U.S. with their highly ethical election system (sarcasm) dictating to foreign governments whether their elections were “fair” or not.

During the “Arab Spring” in 2012, Ali Abdullah Saleh, the first elected president of the Republic of Yemen, suffered the same fate, and was forced from office and replaced with the pro-U.S. candidate Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi.

When the Houthis struck back at the U.S. puppet regime, the U.S. had no problems with uniting with local groups in the area opposed to the Houthis, but had officially been branded as “terrorist” groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda.

It is very similar to what recently happened in Syria, where a former member of al-Qaeda, the group who allegedly bombed the World Trade Center towers in New York under the leadership of Osama bin Laden, was chosen by the U.S. to lead Syria today, Ahmed al-Sharaa.

But these factions in Yemen were not strong enough to fight back against the Houthis, so starting with President Obama, the U.S. got involved to prop up their puppet government in Yemen.

First U.S. Citizens Ever Executed without a Judge, Jury, or Trial Happened in Yemen

One for all, and all for one: The U.S. Uniparty political system. Image source New York Times.

The country of Yemen has the unique distinction of being the first country where U.S. citizens were executed by drone strikes by their own government, with no judge, jury, or trial.

President Barak Obama was the first U.S. President known to authorize a drone strike on a U.S. citizen, Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki, a 16-year-old boy who was in Yemen and whose father was linked to al-Qaeda.

This was headline news back in the day.

Nawar al-Awlaki, eight-year-old American girl executed by a drone strike in Yemen ordered by President Trump. Image source.

When Trump succeeded Obama and took office in 2017, he proceeded to do the same thing, by ordering a drone strike in Yemen that killed Nawar al-Awlaki, an eight-year-old American girl and the daughter of Anwar al-Awlaki. The 16-year-old U.S. citizen killed by Obama was her brother. (Source.)

Will Saudi Arabia’s Leader Survive the Yemen Uprising?

Image source.

Since I lived in Saudi Arabia for several years and was a professor at one of their top universities back in the 1990s, I will offer my own opinion on the current leader of Saudi Arabia, which you will be hard-pressed to find from any other western journalist, the Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud (MBS).

MBS was quite young when he came into power, and he reportedly earned a law degree from King Saud University in Riyadh, allegedly finishing second in his class.

I have heard Muslim commentators mention that due to his being educated in Saudi Arabia, rather than going to a Western university, that MBS was better suited and trained to rule Saudi Arabia and not as prone to Western influence.

I strongly disagree.

Back in the day when I was teaching English at King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, located in Dhahran, right next to the Aramco oil compound, it was well-known among the faculty back then that if any member of the Al-Saud family came to study at the University and had to complete their first year learning English, that they had basically flunked the English test needed to attend one of the top universities in the U.S. or the UK.

They were not among the “cream of the crop” among Saudi high school students. We had one or two come through during my tenure there, and they were mostly viewed as seeing themselves as “privileged” due to being part of the Al-Saud family, and not very good students at all, preferring instead to go out partying in the desert with their expensive Range Rovers.

So when I read that MBS graduated “second” in his class, I wondered why he did not graduate first, being a member of the Royal family. My best guess is that someone in the Al-Saud family higher up the ladder must have beat him out at the time.

But the true intellectuals and leaders among Saudis probably all graduated from Ivy League schools in the U.S., or from the top universities in the UK.

And of course, MBS is clearly a puppet who has served, first Obama, and now most recently has served as Trump’s lap dog, in my opinion.

So he is hardly against Western culture, even though he was educated in Saudi Arabia.

His rise in power within the Al-Saud dynasty coincided with Donald Trump’s first term (coincidence?).

Mohammed was appointed crown prince on 21 June 2017, following the King’s decision to depose Muhammad bin Nayef and make his own son the heir to the throne.

On the day bin Salman became crown prince, US president Donald Trump called to congratulate him.

Trump and Mohammed pledged “close cooperation” on security and economic issues and discussed the need to cut off support for terrorism, the diplomatic dispute with Qatar, and the push for peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Mohammed told The Washington Post in April 2017 that without America’s cultural influence on Saudi Arabia, “we would have ended up like North Korea.”

In May 2017, Mohammed launched a purge against competing Saudi business and political elites in an anti-corruption campaign.

On 4 November 2017, the Saudi press announced the arrest of the Saudi prince and billionaire Al-Waleed bin Talal, a frequent English-language news commentator and a major shareholder in Citi, News Corp and Twitter, as well as over 40 princes and government ministers on corruption and money laundering charges.

Others arrested or fired in the purge included Prince Mutaib bin Abdullah, head of the Saudi Arabian National Guard; Minister of Economy and Planning Adel Fakeih; and the commander of the Royal Saudi Navy, Admiral Abdullah bin Sultan bin Mohammed Al-Sultan.

Those arrested in the Ritz Carlton were the subject of what became called “the night of beating”. Most were beaten, and some were tied to walls in stress positions as part of torture by Saudi agents.

The detainees were threatened with blackmail.

Detainees were denied sleep, had their heads covered, and were beaten.[50] Seventeen had to be hospitalised.[50] After many days, the remaining detainees were moved to Al-Ha’ir Prison, while some released are banned from travelling abroad.

The purge helped centralise political powers in the hands of bin Salman and undermine the pre-existing structure of consensus-based governance among Saudi elites.

The arrests resulted in the final sidelining of the faction of King Abdullah, and bin Salman’s consolidation of control of all three branches of the security forces. It also cemented bin Salman’s supremacy over business elites in Saudi Arabia and resulted in a mass seizure of assets by the bin Salman regime.

Trump expressed support for the move, tweeting

“Some of those they are harshly treating have been ‘milking’ their country for years!“

Source.

Trump seemingly worked hard in an effort to turn MBS into a full-fledged Zionist and support Israel, but MBS stated that if he did not support the Palestinian right to have their own homeland, his own people would stone him to death.

In 2018, (MBS) voiced his support for a Jewish homeland of Israel, the first time that a senior Saudi royal has expressed such sentiments publicly.

In 2020, Mohammed met with Netanyahu and Israeli head of the Mossad Yosi Cohen in Neom. The United States had been pushing for Israel’s normalisation for some years, calling (in this context) the Abraham Accords the “deal of the century”, but Riyadh rejected reports of progress.

In 2023, there were ongoing U.S. lead negotiations to establish diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel. Mohammed also said that his country was moving steadily closer to normalising relations with Israel as part of the Abraham Accords.

Amid the Gaza war, according to reporting by The Atlantic, Mohammed told U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken in January 2024 that he was open to Saudi normalisation with Israel, adding,

“Do I care personally about the Palestinian issue? I don’t, but my people do.”

Surveys in the early stages of the Gaza war showed that over 90 percent of Saudis citizens believed that the Arab states should break off their relations with Israel.

In August 2024, Mohammad discussed his fears of facing assassination due to his support for establishing and normalising Saudi-Israel ties, and the threats he received. He believed for any deal, it was important to include a true path to the State of Palestine.

Source.

As I reported back in June of 2024, Saudi Arabia made the historical move to not renew an 80-year-old agreement with the United States that established the U.S. Dollar as the world currency to purchase Saudi oil, in return for U.S. military protection.

They saw the handwriting on the wall, apparently, and wanted to be able to sell oil to China in their own currency, the Yuan. See:

Saudi Arabia Ends 80-Year-Old PetroDollar U.S. Agreement: Joins China-Led Central Bank Digital Currency Coalition

This, more than anything, could be the primary reason why the U.S. will not participate in helping them fight back against the Houthis anymore.

And one of the biggest reasons why I believe that MBS may not survive much longer, is because Saudi Arabia has taken most of their $billions made from oil profits during the past few years and invested it in AI technology, in what will probably be the largest financial bubble to burst in the history of the modern era.

We could very well be watching the last stages of the Epstein financial empire crumbling right before our eyes.

This article was written by Human Superior Intelligence (HSI)

See Also:

Understand the Times We are Currently Living Through

The Brain Myth: Your Intellect and Thoughts Originate in Your Heart, Not Your Brain

Is God’s Patience About to Run Out on the United States?

Second Edition of eBook Released: The Concept of the American Christian Family is a Myth and is NOT Found Anywhere in the Bible – by Brian Shilhavy

FREE eBook! Restoring the Foundation of New Testament Faith in Jesus Christ – by Brian Shilhavy

KABBALAH: The Anti-Christ Religion of Satan that Controls the World Today

Exposing the Christian Zionism Cult

The Bewitching of America with the Evil Eye and the Mark of the Beast

Jesus Christ’s Opposition to the Jewish State: Lessons for Today

Identifying the Luciferian Globalists Implementing the New World Order – Who are the “Jews”?

The post The Demise of Saudi Arabia, and Perhaps Christian Zionism? Yemen Shocks the World by Taking Control of the Red Sea first appeared on Health Impact News.

Illustration of King David weeping over the death of his son Absalom who was killed in battle. Image source unknown – appears to be AI generated.

by Brian Shilhavy

Last week I released the Second Edition of my eBook, The Concept of the American Christian Family is a Myth and is NOT Found Anywhere in the Bible.

One of the chapters of this book, which can also be read as a single article here, is titled The Concept of the American Christian Family is a Myth and is NOT Found Anywhere in the Bible (The title of the book is from this chapter).

In this chapter I show how the “perfect Christian family” does not exist anywhere in the pages of the Bible, as even all the “heroes of the faith” had very difficult and troubled families which today would probably be called “broken families” because they did not meet the standards of today’s Judeo/Christian values for families in Western Culture.

One of those families in the Old Testament that we have quite a bit of text on is the family of King David.

King David fathered many children from many different wives, and one of his children, his son Absalom, completely betrayed him and almost overthrew David from his throne, temporarily taking over the city of Jerusalem.

In the end the people in David’s household who remained loyal to him prevailed, and defeated Absalom in a very bloody battle.

And yet even with this victory, David very nearly lost the entire kingdom, because he idolized Absalom in his heart as his biological son, by loving him more than he loved God.

Death of Absalom by Corrado Giaquinto, 1762. Source.

David’s Failure as a Father and Not Disciplining his Son for Committing Rape had Disastrous Consequences

The story of Absalom’s betrayal against his father and nearly taking over the Kingdom of Israel, starts with one of King David’s other sons who raped the sister of Absalom, and was never punished for it.

The story is recorded in the Bible in 2 Samuel chapter 13.

In the course of time, Amnon son of David fell in love with Tamar, the beautiful sister of Absalom son of David.

Amnon became frustrated to the point of illness on account of his sister Tamar, for she was a virgin, and it seemed impossible for him to do anything to her.

Now Amnon had a friend named Jonadab son of Shimeah, David’s brother. Jonadab was a very shrewd man. He asked Amnon,

“Why do you, the king’s son, look so haggard morning after morning? Won’t you tell me?”

Amnon said to him,

“I’m in love with Tamar, my brother Absalom’s sister.”

“Go to bed and pretend to be ill,” Jonadab said.

“When your father comes to see you, say to him, ‘I would like my sister Tamar to come and give me something to eat. Let her prepare the food in my sight so I may watch her and then eat it from her hand.'”

So Amnon lay down and pretended to be ill.

When the king came to see him, Amnon said to him,

“I would like my sister Tamar to come and make some special bread in my sight, so I may eat from her hand.”

David sent word to Tamar at the palace:

“Go to the house of your brother Amnon and prepare some food for him.”

So Tamar went to the house of her brother Amnon, who was lying down. She took some dough, kneaded it, made the bread in his sight and baked it. Then she took the pan and served him the bread, but he refused to eat.

“Send everyone out of here,” Amnon said.

So everyone left him. Then Amnon said to Tamar,

“Bring the food here into my bedroom so I may eat from your hand.”

And Tamar took the bread she had prepared and brought it to her brother Amnon in his bedroom.

But when she took it to him to eat, he grabbed her and said,

“Come to bed with me, my sister.”

“Don’t, my brother!” she said to him.

“Don’t force me. Such a thing should not be done in Israel! Don’t do this wicked thing. What about me? Where could I get rid of my disgrace?

And what about you? You would be like one of the wicked fools in Israel. Please speak to the king; he will not keep me from being married to you.”

But he refused to listen to her, and since he was stronger than she, he raped her.

Then Amnon hated her with intense hatred. In fact, he hated her more than he had loved her.

Amnon said to her,

“Get up and get out!”

“No!” she said to him.

“Sending me away would be a greater wrong than what you have already done to me.”

But he refused to listen to her. He called his personal servant and said,

“Get this woman out of here and bolt the door after her.”

So his servant put her out and bolted the door after her. She was wearing a richly ornamented robe, for this was the kind of garment the virgin daughters of the king wore.

Tamar put ashes on her head and tore the ornamented robe she was wearing. She put her hand on her head and went away, weeping aloud as she went.

Her brother Absalom said to her,

“Has that Amnon, your brother, been with you? Be quiet now, my sister; he is your brother. Don’t take this thing to heart.”

And Tamar lived in her brother Absalom’s house, a desolate woman.

When King David heard all this, he was furious.

Absalom never said a word to Amnon, either good or bad; he hated Amnon because he had disgraced his sister Tamar. (2 Samuel 13:1-22)

While the text states that King David was “furious” over the rape, no legal action or punishment was apparently ever started as would be required by the Law of Moses for raping a virgin.

David clearly gave preferential treatment to his own biological children that he probably would not have given to non-family members in the Kingdom of Israel.

This allowed the anger and spirit of revenge to foster in Absalom for two years.

Two years later, when Absalom’s sheepshearers were at Baal Hazor near the border of Ephraim, he invited all the king’s sons to come there.

Absalom went to the king and said,

“Your servant has had shearers come. Will the king and his officials please join me?”

“No, my son,” the king replied.

“All of us should not go; we would only be a burden to you.”

Although Absalom urged him, he still refused to go, but gave him his blessing.

Then Absalom said,

“If not, please let my brother Amnon come with us.”

The king asked him, “Why should he go with you?”

But Absalom urged him, so he sent with him Amnon and the rest of the king’s sons.

Absalom ordered his men,

“Listen! When Amnon is in high spirits from drinking wine and I say to you, ‘Strike Amnon down,’ then kill him. Don’t be afraid. Have not I given you this order? Be strong and brave.”

So Absalom’s men did to Amnon what Absalom had ordered.

Then all the king’s sons got up, mounted their mules and fled.

While they were on their way, the report came to David:

“Absalom has struck down all the king’s sons; not one of them is left.”

The king stood up, tore his clothes and lay down on the ground; and all his servants stood by with their clothes torn.

But Jonadab son of Shimeah, David’s brother, said,

“My lord should not think that they killed all the princes; only Amnon is dead. This has been Absalom’s expressed intention ever since the day Amnon raped his sister Tamar. My lord the king should not be concerned about the report that all the king’s sons are dead. Only Amnon is dead.”

(2 Samuel 13:23-33)

Absalom lived as a refugee for three years after this, staying away from his father and Jerusalem.

When he finally came back to Jerusalem, he began his conspiracy to kill his father and take over his throne, by slandering his father and gathering together his enemies.

In the course of time, Absalom provided himself with a chariot and horses and with fifty men to run ahead of him. He would get up early and stand by the side of the road leading to the city gate.

Whenever anyone came with a complaint to be placed before the king for a decision, Absalom would call out to him,

“What town are you from?”

He would answer,

“Your servant is from one of the tribes of Israel.”

Then Absalom would say to him,

“Look, your claims are valid and proper, but there is no representative of the king to hear you.”

And Absalom would add,

“If only I were appointed judge in the land! Then everyone who has a complaint or case could come to me and I would see that he gets justice.”

Also, whenever anyone approached him to bow down before him, Absalom would reach out his hand, take hold of him and kiss him.

Absalom behaved in this way toward all the Israelites who came to the king asking for justice, and so he stole the hearts of the men of Israel.

At the end of four years, Absalom said to the king,

“Let me go to Hebron and fulfill a vow I made to the LORD. While your servant was living at Geshur in Aram, I made this vow: ‘If the LORD takes me back to Jerusalem, I will worship the LORD in Hebron.'”

The king said to him,

“Go in peace.”

So he went to Hebron.

Then Absalom sent secret messengers throughout the tribes of Israel to say,

“As soon as you hear the sound of the trumpets, then say, ‘Absalom is king in Hebron.'”

Two hundred men from Jerusalem had accompanied Absalom. They had been invited as guests and went quite innocently, knowing nothing about the matter.

While Absalom was offering sacrifices, he also sent for Ahithophel the Gilonite, David’s counselor, to come from Giloh, his hometown.

And so the conspiracy gained strength, and Absalom’s following kept on increasing. (2 Samuel 15:1-12)

It is important to note that before all these things happened to King David, God made a Covenant with David, promising him that he would never lack a descendant to sit on his throne and rule Israel. This promise was about the coming Messiah, Jesus Christ, who was a descendant of David.

This is recorded in 2 Samuel chapter 7.

“Now then, tell my servant David, ‘This is what the LORD Almighty says:

I took you from the pasture and from following the flock to be ruler over my people Israel. I have been with you wherever you have gone, and I have cut off all your enemies from before you.

Now I will make your name great, like the names of the greatest men of the earth. And I will provide a place for my people Israel and will plant them so that they can have a home of their own and no longer be disturbed.

Wicked people will not oppress them anymore, as they did at the beginning and have done ever since the time I appointed leaders over my people Israel.

I will also give you rest from all your enemies.

The LORD declares to you that the LORD himself will establish a house for you: When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom.

He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he will be my son.

When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you.

Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever.'” (2 Samuel 7:8-16)

The person from David’s family line that would be next to take the throne was not Absalom. While it is recorded in 2 Samuel 14:27 that Absalom fathered three sons and a daughter, his sons apparently died, according to 2 Samuel 18:

During his lifetime Absalom had taken a pillar and erected it in the King’s Valley as a monument to himself, for he thought, “I have no son to carry on the memory of my name.”

He named the pillar after himself, and it is called Absalom’s Monument to this day. (2 Samuel 18:18)

David’s other son, Solomon, who was born to the woman David originally committed adultery with, Bathsheba, was the one who became the next King after David died. David had also murdered Bathsheba’s first husband, Uriah.

What the Old Testament Scriptures actually teach, therefore, is that God uses imperfect families to accomplish his purpose on earth.

Not only is Bathsheba in the family line of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, so is a non-Israelite, the prostitute of Rahab from Jericho:

A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham: Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar, Perez the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram, Ram the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, Nahshon the father of Salmon, Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab, Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth, Obed the father of Jesse, and Jesse the father of King David.

David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife… (Matthew 1:1-6)

David and those loyal to him had to flee Jerusalem before they were all murdered by Absalom, and after regrouping their forces, they met with the forces loyal to Absalom in battle, and Absalom himself was killed along with about 20,000 other Israelites.

David mustered the men who were with him and appointed over them commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds. David sent the troops out—a third under the command of Joab, a third under Joab’s brother Abishai son of Zeruiah, and a third under Ittai the Gittite.

The king told the troops,

“I myself will surely march out with you.”

But the men said,

“You must not go out; if we are forced to flee, they won’t care about us. Even if half of us die, they won’t care; but you are worth ten thousand of us. It would be better now for you to give us support from the city.”

The king answered,

“I will do whatever seems best to you.”

So the king stood beside the gate while all the men marched out in units of hundreds and of thousands. The king commanded Joab, Abishai and Ittai,

“Be gentle with the young man Absalom for my sake.”

And all the troops heard the king giving orders concerning Absalom to each of the commanders.

The army marched into the field to fight Israel, and the battle took place in the forest of Ephraim. There the army of Israel was defeated by David’s men, and the casualties that day were great—twenty thousand men.

The battle spread out over the whole countryside, and the forest claimed more lives that day than the sword.

Now Absalom happened to meet David’s men. He was riding his mule, and as the mule went under the thick branches of a large oak, Absalom’s head got caught in the tree.

He was left hanging in midair, while the mule he was riding kept on going. When one of the men saw this, he told Joab,

“I just saw Absalom hanging in an oak tree.”

Joab said to the man who had told him this,

“What! You saw him? Why didn’t you strike him to the ground right there? Then I would have had to give you ten shekels of silver and a warrior’s belt.”

But the man replied,

“Even if a thousand shekels were weighed out into my hands, I would not lift my hand against the king’s son. In our hearing the king commanded you and Abishai and Ittai, ‘Protect the young man Absalom for my sake.’ And if I had put my life in jeopardy—and nothing is hidden from the king—you would have kept your distance from me.”

Joab said,

“I’m not going to wait like this for you.”

So he took three javelins in his hand and plunged them into Absalom’s heart while Absalom was still alive in the oak tree. And ten of Joab’s armor-bearers surrounded Absalom, struck him and killed him.

Then Joab sounded the trumpet, and the troops stopped pursuing Israel, for Joab halted them. They took Absalom, threw him into a big pit in the forest and piled up a large heap of rocks over him.

Meanwhile, all the Israelites fled to their homes. (2 Samuel 18:1-17)

Image source unknown. Appears to be AI generated.

Joab, the head of David’s military, and the only one who was powerful enough to defy the king’s orders, did what he had to do to protect the Kingdom.

He knew full well what David’s response would be, but he also knew full well what the consequences would be if Absalom was allowed to live, so he acted in the best interests of the Kingdom.

What happened next was an event that if David had made the wrong choice, he would have lost everything.

Joab was told,

“The king is weeping and mourning for Absalom.”

And for the whole army the victory that day was turned into mourning, because on that day the troops heard it said,

“The king is grieving for his son.”

The men stole into the city that day as men steal in who are ashamed when they flee from battle. The king covered his face and cried aloud,

“O my son Absalom! O Absalom, my son, my son!”

Then Joab went into the house to the king and said,

“Today you have humiliated all your men, who have just saved your life and the lives of your sons and daughters and the lives of your wives and concubines.

You love those who hate you and hate those who love you. You have made it clear today that the commanders and their men mean nothing to you.

I see that you would be pleased if Absalom were alive today and all of us were dead.

Now go out and encourage your men.

I swear by the LORD that if you don’t go out, not a man will be left with you by nightfall.

This will be worse for you than all the calamities that have come upon you from your youth till now.”

So the king got up and took his seat in the gateway.

When the men were told, “The king is sitting in the gateway,” they all came before him. Meanwhile, the Israelites had fled to their homes. (2 Samuel 19:1-8)

David came within hours of losing everything, simply because he loved his biological son more than he loved God, and the Kingdom of God of which he was appointed King.

If you put your Loyalty to Jesus and the Father Above your Loyalty to Family, the World will Hate You

Loyalty to family members and bloodlines above all else is Satanic and worldly. Jesus made this very clear during his time on earth, stating to the Jews that their bloodlines back to Abraham were meaningless, unless they actually knew God, and recognized that he came from God and was the Messiah.

Jesus also clearly demanded loyalty to him above our loyalty to family members, and he himself was persecuted by his own family members as I have recently written. See:

When Jesus’s Own Family Turned Against Him

As a result of Jesus’s loyalty to his Heavenly Father above his earthly family, the world hated him. And he stated that the world would hate us also if we walked this same path.

If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.

If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own.

As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.

Remember the words I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’

If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. (John 15:18-20)

This principle applies not only to our own biological families, but also to the fake believers in the “Household of God”, or those who claim to be part of “God’s family.”

Being part of a group of believers does not give anyone a “free pass” if they do not know God, and are betraying the faith.

Paul made this very clear in his writings:

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father’s wife.

And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this?

Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present.

When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 5:1-5)

Timothy, my son, I give you this instruction in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by following them you may fight the good fight, holding on to faith and a good conscience.

Some have rejected these and so have shipwrecked their faith. Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme. (1 Timothy 1:18-20)

It is often a very lonely journey as we walk through this life as aliens and pilgrims, knowing that this is not our home, as we reject the ways of the world and then suffer for it, often by being rejected by our own families or so called “believers” and “brothers”.

But it is worth it, knowing where our loyalties lie, just like the true believers who walked that same lonely path before us!

All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance.

And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth.

People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one.

Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.

I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets, who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies.

Women received back their dead, raised to life again. Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection. Some faced jeers and flogging, while still others were chained and put in prison.

They were stoned; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated:

The world was not worthy of them.

(Hebrews 11)

Comment on this article at Created4Health.org.

This article was written by Human Superior Intelligence (HSI)

See Also:

Understand the Times We are Currently Living Through

Second Edition of eBook Released: The Concept of the American Christian Family is a Myth and is NOT Found Anywhere in the Bible – by Brian Shilhavy

FREE eBook! Restoring the Foundation of New Testament Faith in Jesus Christ – by Brian Shilhavy

The Brotherhood of Satan vs. The Brotherhood of Jesus Christ

KABBALAH: The Anti-Christ Religion of Satan that Controls the World Today

Exposing the Christian Zionism Cult

The Bewitching of America with the Evil Eye and the Mark of the Beast

Jesus Christ’s Opposition to the Jewish State: Lessons for Today

Identifying the Luciferian Globalists Implementing the New World Order – Who are the “Jews”?

The Brain Myth: Your Intellect and Thoughts Originate in Your Heart, Not Your Brain

What is the Condition of Your Heart? The Superiority of the Human Heart over the Human Brain

The post When King David Almost Lost Everything by Loving his Son More than God first appeared on Health Impact News.

Au titre d'une initiative conjointe engageant douze pays dont la France, le ministre des affaires étrangères britannique a annoncé le 8 septembre, devant la Chambre des communes, de nouvelles sanctions visant les colonies israéliennes en Cisjordanie. M. Edward (« Ed ») Miliband a dénoncé notamment le « nettoyage ethnique » qui y sévit. Les mesures qu'il a détaillées cibleront « des entreprises et des individus qui fournissent des services, tels que la construction, les infrastructures, le financement et l'immobilier, destinés à l'expansion » de la colonisation. Il s'agit aussi d'interdire l'importation des produits de ces mêmes colonies – que les Nations unies estiment illégales au regard du droit international.

Ces dispositions relèvent en partie du jeu politique interne. Le nouveau gouvernement de M. Andrew (« Andy ») Burnham semble enfin prendre acte de l'impasse dans laquelle le Parti travailliste s'est mis en refusant de faire droit à l'émotion et aux mobilisations suscitées par l'aggravation de la tragédie que vit le peuple palestinien au cours de la période récente. Déjà, le 11 novembre 2023, plus de 800 000 personnes avaient défilé à Londres en solidarité avec Gaza. Ces derniers mois, les Verts, beaucoup plus offensifs sur le sujet que les travaillistes, progressent dans les sondages et aux élections partielles ou locales.

Les sanctions contre les colonies illégales sont aussi tardives. En effet, depuis le 7 octobre 2023, les forces de Tel-Aviv ou des colons ont tué plus de 1 100 Palestiniens, dont plus de 240 enfants, en Cisjordanie. L'armée israélienne inflige également des détentions ou des incarcérations arbitraires, des humiliations de toutes sortes, des contrôles incessants qui rendent les déplacements cauchemardesques sur ce territoire.

Les dispositions annoncées par M. Miliband sont enfin dérisoires. D'une part, l'État visé par ces sanctions en raison de la seule colonisation de la Cisjordanie commet un génocide, des crimes de guerre et s'en prend illégalement au Liban, à la Syrie ou à l'Iran. D'autre part, les importations des colonies ne représentent qu'une proportion minime des 6 milliards de livres (près de 7 milliards d'euros) d'échanges commerciaux entre le Royaume-Uni et Israël. D'après Bloomberg, cité par L'Opinion (8 septembre 2026), « des diplomates britanniques ont eux-mêmes assuré Washington que les sanctions (contre les colonies israéliennes) étaient avant tout symboliques et qu'elles n'avaient pas vocation à miner la relation diplomatique et commerciale entre les deux États ».

Dans nos archives

• 

  Les trahisons de M. Starmer n'ont pas tué la gauche britannique

  Owen Jones, avril 2026
  Au Royaume-Uni aussi, le pouvoir semble promis à la droite radicale. Le parti Reform UK de M. Nigel Farage a le vent en poupe. Quinze années d'austérité et de scandales ont (…) →
• 

  Ces « terroristes » britanniques qui soutiennent la Palestine

  Rayan Freschi & Mathieu Rigouste, janvier 2026
  Comment entraver l'action d'une organisation britannique de solidarité avec la Palestine s'inscrivant parfaitement dans le cadre du droit ? Autrement dit, comment échapper à l'État (…) →
• 

  À Londres, le retour de l'extrême centre

  Oliver Eagleton, septembre 2024
  Après quatorze ans de pouvoir conservateur, les travaillistes l'ont emporté aux élections du 4 juillet. Mais personne ne croit à la rupture. Comme son prédécesseur, le nouveau (…) →
• 

  La rue avec Gaza, les élites derrière Israël

  Daniel Finn, mai 2024
  On n'avait plus vu cela depuis la mobilisation de 2003 contre la guerre d'Irak menée par MM. George W. Bush et Anthony Blair. Le 11 novembre dernier, selon les organisateurs, plus (…) →

On n'avait plus vu cela depuis la mobilisation de 2003 contre la guerre d'Irak menée par MM. George W. Bush et Anthony Blair. Le 11 novembre dernier, selon les organisateurs, plus de 800 000 personnes auraient défilé à Londres en solidarité avec Gaza. Les manifestants ciblaient le gouvernement conservateur comme le Parti travailliste, qui lui aussi a pris fait et cause pour Israël.

Depuis le début de l'offensive israélienne contre Gaza, en octobre dernier, un fossé s'est creusé entre la classe politique et l'opinion publique britanniques. Le gouvernement conservateur de M. Rishi Sunak et l'opposition travailliste de M. Keir Starmer ont apporté un soutien sans réserve à la guerre menée par M. Benyamin Netanyahou au nom du droit d'Israël à se défendre.

Pourtant, la population britannique rejette l'idée selon laquelle Israël devrait bombarder l'enclave jusqu'à l'élimination du Hamas. En novembre, 59 % des personnes interrogées par YouGov souhaitaient qu'Israël mette un terme à sa campagne militaire, quand seulement 19 % d'entre elles se déclaraient favorables à sa poursuite. En février, 66 % des sondés soutenaient un cessez-le-feu et seulement 13 % d'entre eux la guerre contre les Palestiniens. Aujourd'hui, l'opinion publique demande l'arrêt des ventes d'armes aux Israéliens à une majorité de 56 %, contre 17 % qui réclament sa poursuite (1).

La présidente conservatrice de la commission des affaires étrangères à Westminster a révélé fin mars l'existence d'une note des services juridiques du gouvernement britannique établissant qu'Israël violait le droit humanitaire international. Comme une telle conclusion emporte que Londres cesse de vendre des armes à Tel-Aviv, l'exécutif a refusé de rendre public le document. Mais, le 1er avril, des frappes de missiles israéliennes ont tué trois salariés britanniques de l'organisation caritative World Central Kitchen avec quatre autres de leurs collègues, alors qu'ils apportaient de l'aide à Gaza. Le surlendemain, plus de six cents juristes et universitaires — dont trois juges retraités de la Cour suprême britannique — dénonçaient l'illégalité des ventes à l'armée israélienne (2).

Depuis plus de six mois, la solidarité avec le peuple palestinien donne lieu à des manifestations qui comptent parmi les plus massives de l'histoire moderne. Semaine après semaine et mois après mois, les rues de Londres et d'autres villes britanniques se remplissent de manifestants appelant au cessez-le-feu. La plus importante à ce jour a réuni plusieurs centaines de milliers de personnes. En réponse, le gouvernement Sunak a condamné les protestataires et cherché des moyens de les criminaliser.

« Marches de la haine »

En novembre, la ministre de l'intérieur a demandé à la police métropolitaine de Londres d'interdire la grande manifestation qui se préparait. Comme les officiers de police de la « Met » lui ont répondu qu'elle n'avait aucune raison légale de prendre une telle décision, Mme Suella Braverman a allégué que les manifestants entendaient profaner un mémorial de la Grande Guerre pour inciter des radicaux d'extrême droite à attaquer la marche, ce qui aurait donné un prétexte pour interdire de futurs rassemblements. Mais les militants excités par la ministre s'en sont pris aux forces de l'ordre et ont blessé plusieurs policiers, grièvement dans certains cas.

À la suite de ce fiasco, M. Sunak a dû exiger la démission de Mme Braverman, mais son gouvernement et la presse de droite ont poursuivi leurs attaques contre les manifestations en faveur du cessez-le-feu, qualifiées de « marches de la haine ». Dans leur viseur, toujours, le slogan « Du fleuve à la mer, la Palestine sera libre », qualifié d'antisémite.

Lorsqu'elle était encore ministre de l'intérieur, Mme Braverman avait recommandé aux services de police d'interpréter ce mot d'ordre comme l'« expression d'un violent désir de voir Israël rayé de la carte » et de punir son utilisation au nom du respect de l'ordre public (3). Dans un cas au moins, la police a suivi les instructions de la ministre : à Manchester, une jeune femme d'origine palestinienne a été arrêtée pour injure à caractère raciste parce qu'elle l'avait prononcé (4).

Les soutiens d'Israël prétendent discerner le « vrai » sens du slogan « Du fleuve à la mer, la Palestine sera libre » : ils y voient à coup sûr un appel au massacre ou à l'expulsion dès lors qu'il ne dit pas ce qu'il adviendra de la population juive d'Israël une fois cette aspiration satisfaite. Les Palestiniens et leurs alliés, qui martèlent qu'il s'agit en réalité d'un appel à l'égalité et non au nettoyage ethnique, se voient fréquemment refuser l'accès aux médias britanniques. Du reste, les défenseurs d'Israël invoquent à l'envi son « droit à se défendre » et son « droit à l'existence ». Or la première formule ne précise pas quelles méthodes l'État peut légitimement employer au nom de l'autodéfense, et la seconde ignore la question de l'existence d'un État palestinien, à côté d'Israël. Les Palestiniens les perçoivent certainement comme des menaces et des agressions, du moins telles qu'elles sont employées en règle générale par les principaux défenseurs de la guerre contre Gaza, mais les proférer ne vaudra à personne d'être poursuivi pour injure à caractère raciste.

Début mars, lors d'un discours prononcé devant le 10 Downing Street, M. Sunak a fait franchir un cap supplémentaire à la campagne gouvernementale contre le mouvement de solidarité avec la Palestine. Il a prétendu que les manifestations en faveur d'un cessez-le-feu avaient entraîné « une hausse choquante des perturbations et des actes criminels extrémistes », se traduisant notamment par des « intimidations, des menaces et la préparation d'actions violentes ». En réalité, la contestation, particulièrement pacifique et disciplinée, a donné lieu à moins d'arrestations qu'un festival de musique ou qu'un événement sportif de même ampleur (5). Le discours du premier ministre se fondait essentiellement sur des affirmations de journalistes prétendant sans la moindre preuve, que Londres tendrait à devenir une zone interdite aux Juifs (6).

Deux universitaires britanniques ont obtenu la condamnation pour diffamation de la ministre de la recherche Michelle Donelan, qui les avait qualifiés de soutiens du Hamas (7). Les archevêques de Canterbury et de York ont cru devoir s'inquiéter d'une approche qui « ciblerait de manière disproportionnée les musulmans » après que le gouvernement a confié au ministre aux communautés Michael Gove le soin d'élaborer une nouvelle définition de l'extrémisme : figure de proue de la droite néoconservatrice, M. Gove affirme en effet depuis longtemps que les musulmans britanniques représentent une menace pour la démocratie libérale ; à son initiative, les autorités considéreront désormais comme extrémiste toute velléité de saper les institutions ou les « valeurs » britanniques (8).

Les attaques contre le mouvement de solidarité avec la Palestine se nourrissent aussi des déclarations de personnalités gouvernementales affublées de titres orwelliens, tel M. John Woodcock : le « conseiller indépendant en matière de violences et de perturbations politiques » a récemment proposé que les principaux partis consentent à la « “tolérance zéro” à l'égard des groupes qui menacent la démocratie », par exemple Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) (9). « Si les opinions “extrémistes” sont illégales, s'inquiétait sur X, le 4 mars, la députée tory Miriam Cates, alors celui qui définit l'“extrémisme” a le pouvoir de restreindre la liberté d'expression, la liberté de religion, la liberté de la presse et la liberté d'association. C'est la voie vers l'autoritarisme. »

M. Woodcock est, lui, un ancien député travailliste, rallié à M. Boris Johnson en 2019. Mais nombre de députés de son ancien camp partagent son hostilité envers les manifestations contre la guerre à Gaza, à commencer par le dirigeant du parti, M. Starmer. Au début de l'offensive israélienne, ce dernier s'est dit convaincu qu'Israël avait le droit de couper l'eau et l'électricité aux civils de Gaza — action pourtant constitutive de crime de guerre. Face à l'indignation, M. Starmer a dû retirer ses propos, en alléguant contre l'évidence qu'il avait mal compris la question (10).

Il a par ailleurs suspendu deux parlementaires : M. Andrew McDonald, pour avoir déclaré, lors d'une manifestation à Londres : « Nous ne nous arrêterons pas tant que justice n'aura pas été faite. Tant que l'ensemble de la population, israélienne comme palestinienne, du fleuve à la mer, ne pourra vivre dans la liberté et la paix » ; et Mme Kate Osamor, parce qu'elle avait qualifié la guerre à Gaza de génocide, alors que la Cour internationale de justice (CIJ) avait déjà jugé recevable la plainte déposée par l'Afrique du Sud contre Israël. M. McDonald a réintégré son groupe parlementaire après la défaite essuyée par le Parti travailliste fin février, à l'occasion d'une élection partielle importante à Rochdale, dans l'agglomération de Manchester. Le vainqueur, M. George Galloway, ancien député travailliste devenu un électron libre, avait fait de ce scrutin un référendum contre le soutien de M. Starmer à Israël.

La victoire de M. Galloway est survenue à la suite d'une violente controverse. Quelques jours avant son élection, le Parti national écossais (SNP) avait déposé à la Chambre des communes une motion en faveur d'un cessez-le-feu. Le Labour désirait supprimer les références au « châtiment collectif du peuple palestinien » et au « massacre de civils innocents ». Il souhaitait aussi remplacer l'appel clair et net à un cessez-le-feu par des circonlocutions qui auraient donné à M. Netanyahou une marge de manœuvre suffisante pour poursuivre sa guerre. Selon la formulation proposée par les travaillistes, « les Israéliens ont le droit d'avoir la garantie que les horreurs du 7 octobre 2023 ne se reproduiront pas ». Mais il n'était nullement question du droit des Palestiniens à obtenir la garantie que les horreurs subies depuis le 7 octobre (et bien avant) ne se reproduiraient pas.

Comme M. Starmer ne voulait ni que ses députés votent contre la motion du SNP ni qu'ils s'abstiennent, il a imposé au président de la Chambre Lindsay Hoyle un vote des amendements travaillistes préalable à celui de la motion. Cette violation des règles de procédure parlementaire lui a permis d'empêcher le troisième parti de la Chambre de défendre une position reflétant l'opinion majoritaire dans le pays.

Le refus des travaillistes d'appeler clairement au cessez-le-feu contredit les opinions de ses propres partisans. En février, selon YouGov, 83 % des électeurs ayant voté pour le Labour lors de la précédente élection générale voulaient en effet qu'Israël mette un terme à sa campagne militaire. Seuls 3 % d'entre eux se déclaraient favorables à la poursuite des opérations. L'entêtement de M. Starmer à soutenir la guerre de M. Netanyahou procède de son refus de distinguer lutte contre l'antisémitisme et soutien à Tel-Aviv. Car l'association de la défense des droits des Palestiniens à l'hostilité aux Juifs lui sert à marginaliser la gauche de son parti depuis qu'il en a pris la direction, en 2020. Mais cette arme de lutte interne devient un problème politique majeur dans la perspective de l'élection générale.

Bien qu'une violence ininterrompue, émaillée de crimes de guerre, s'abatte depuis plus de six mois sur les civils palestiniens, les deux principaux partis britanniques restent inébranlables dans leur défense d'Israël. Et bien que des figures politiques aussi importantes que le conservateur Nicholas Soames, membre de la Chambre des lords, et le maire travailliste de Londres, M. Sadiq Khan, appellent désormais à l'arrêt des ventes d'armes, MM. Sunak et Starmer affirment encore à cette heure que le Royaume-Uni doit continuer à soutenir l'effort de guerre israélien. Même si cette position évoluait dans les semaines à venir, l'un et l'autre auront causé des dommages à leur réputation, ainsi qu'au crédit diplomatique de leur pays.

(Traduit de l'anglais par Nicolas Vieillescazes.)