The Pope is visiting the Middle East. He made a visit to Bethlehem and thousands lined the streets, under heavy security, to catch a glimpse of him. The Pope called for the creation of a Palestinian state. With the King of Jordan declaring recently – see yesterday’s BLOG – that unless there is a Palestinian state soon, there will be war within a year, it seems that the Pope’s visit is no coincidence. There may also be a hidden agenda, as his real visit to the Holy land may be to secure Rome’s control over the sacred sites of Christendom that are in Jerusalem. Is this what the international community is pressing for? Is the end game for Jerusalem to be controlled by Rome and perhaps the United Nations? One Rabbi told the Pope to go and split Rome! The emotions run deep. As the article below points out, it appears the Untied States has put the pressure on Israel to submit to a two state solution and do it quickly. Here’s what we need to keep an eye on. The King of Jordan is trying to broker a peace agreement and a two state solution creating an independent state of Palestine, with Jerusalem as it’s capital. The King is the only person in the Muslim world that holds the ‘keys to the Temple Mount,’ in other words he has the final say as to what happens on the Temple Mount. The Temple Mount is what is left of where the Jewish Temple, one of the wonders of the ancient world, once stood. It is an area that is hotly contested. The Jews are looking to rebuild their temple on the mount. In fact they have the stones already pre-cut and ready to be set in place… once they get permission to build it. The only person on the planet who has the power to allow this, is Kink Abdullah. Connect the dots. We know that the Anti-Christ will cut a deal with the Jews and allow them to build their temple. I’m not saying that Abdullah is the Anti-Christ, but we need to see how he is involved, if such a deal goes down. With Netanyahu set to meet with president Obama next week, the stakes are high… Interesting times we live in, yes?
* * *
Pontiff calls for Palestinian state
The pontiff stood alongside Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas as he delivered his strongest public support yet for Palestinian statehood. “Mr. President, the Holy See supports the right of your people to a sovereign Palestinian homeland in the land of your forefathers, secure and at peace with its neighbors, within internationally recognized borders,” the pontiff said. Benedict acknowledged the difficulties faced by the Palestinians, although he stopped short of singling out Israel for criticism. “I know how much you have suffered and continue to suffer as a result of the turmoil that has afflicted this land for decades,” he said. “It is my earnest hope that the serious concerns involving security in Israel and the Palestinian Territories will soon be allayed sufficiently to allow greater freedom of movement, especially with regard to contact between family members and access to the holy places,” the pope continued. “Palestinians, like any other people, have a natural right to marry, to raise families, and to have access to work, education and health care. I pray too that, with the assistance of the international community, reconstruction work can proceed swiftly wherever homes, schools or hospitals have been destroyed , especially during recent fighting.
* * *
Obama’s Signal to Israel: Submit
By Mona Charen
May 12, 2009 / 18 Iyar 5769
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | In early April, Vice President Biden was asked if the administration was concerned that Israel might strike at Iran’s nuclear facilities. “I don’t believe Prime Minister Netanyahu would do that,” Mr. Biden replied. “I think he would be ill advised to do that.”
A few weeks later, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explained the administration’s solution to the threat of an Iranian bomb: “For Israel to get the kind of strong support it’s looking for vis-a-vis Iran, it can’t stay on the sideline with respect to the Palestinians and the peace efforts … they go hand in hand.” And on May 10, National Security Adviser James Jones spelled it out further: “We understand Israel’s preoccupation with Iran as an existential threat. We agree with that. … By the same token, there are a lot of things that you can do to diminish that existential threat by working hard towards achieving a two-state solution.” By what reasoning has the administration decided that pushing Israel to permit a new Palestinian state would — in any way — diminish the threat from Iran? Do they believe that Iran’s (or I should say the Iranian leadership’s) genocidal hostility toward Israel is the result of lack of progress toward an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza? Will the Iranian leadership, which has characterized Israel as a “cancerous tumor,” declared that “Israel must we wiped off the map,” and promised that “Israel is destined for destruction and will soon disappear” is going to change its mind if Israel enters into negotiations with the Palestinians? “Obama will be a great friend to Israel.” So said a Jewish Democrat in a pre-election debate with me. I asked her whether she had any hesitations about someone who had been steeped in academic pieties and Hyde Park leftwing intellectual fashions, and who had tamely absorbed the Rev. Wright’s sermons for 20 years? Her response was to mouth some of the platitudes about support for Israel that were to be found on the Obama campaign’s website. I wonder if she is having doubts now. Does it give her pause that Rose Gottemoeller, assistant secretary of state and America’s chief nuclear arms negotiator, has called on Israel (along with Pakistan, India, and North Korea) to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? By including Israel on a list of nations known to either have nuclear weapons or be close to acquiring them, the Obama administration is introducing a sinister note of moral equivalence to the problem of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. All previous U.S. governments have implicitly accepted that Israel’s nuclear weapons pose a threat to no nation and are maintained only to deter Israel’s enemies from genocidal attacks. Like other liberals, my debate opponent probably believes that Obama’s apology tour of global capitals was pitch perfect. Of course, it’s one thing for the United States, still the world’s superpower, to delude itself that winning international popularity contests will make us safer (though it’s a dangerous delusion), but Israel, which always sits inches from the precipice of destruction, cannot afford such fantasies at all. We have recent history to guide us. In 2000, Israel withdrew from the security corridor it had established in southern Lebanon. The world had long been clamoring for Israel to do this. The Iranian-sponsored Hezbollah movement immediately seized the area — trumpeting its triumph in driving out the enemy. In 2006, southern Lebanon became the launching pad for Hezbollah’s missile campaign against northern Israel. Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005. The Iranian-backed Hamas movement moved quickly and took control there (not without significant internecine bloodshed with Fatah), and again used the territory not to build a peaceful Palestinian enclave but to launch 10,000 missiles against southern Israel. Fatah (which is called moderate because it wants to destroy Israel on the installment plan rather than all at once) retains tenuous control of the West Bank. But even Mahmoud Abbas admits that if Israel were to withdraw completely from the area, Hamas would gain control in a heartbeat. Next week, Prime Minister Netanyahu will meet with President Obama in Washington. It is hard to see how this relationship can go well. President Obama has sent abundant signals that his foreign policy is 50 percent wishful thinking and 50 percent leftwing mush. There may not be any easy answers to the problem of a nuclear Iran. But pressuring Israel to take suicidal risks is clearly the worst possible approach. Iran will conclude, as its proxies Hezbollah and Hamas at various times concluded, that force and the threat of force work. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. … We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. –Sir Karl Popper